JOURNAL OF MAINE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



33 



to a tree near, from that to another, 

 and so on until out of sight. The 

 nest contained two eggs. On the 15th 

 I again went to the nest and found 

 the male there. I was within ten feet 

 of the nest before he left the hole, 

 and he lit near, staying within three 

 rods of the nest, moving occasionally 

 from one tree to another and tapping 

 in a desultory way on the trunk, all 

 the time seemingly indifferent to my 

 presence. The nest now contained 

 three eggs, which appeared fresh and 

 were left. I had hardly reached the 

 base of the stub before the male 

 alighted at the entrance and after re- 

 peated inquiring glances within, en- 

 tered. On the 20th I was again at the 

 nest. This time the bird flew direct- 

 ly out of sight when I was part way 

 up the stub. The nest hole was near 

 the top of the stub, about 34i feet 

 above the ground. The cavity was 

 large, being wider at the top. taper- 

 ing gradually toward the bottom. The 

 entrance was four inches in diameter 

 and did not enter more than two 

 inches before it was worked down- 

 ward. The horizontal depth of the 

 cavity, the ruler being placed on the 

 lower edge of the entrance was 11 

 inches. The vertical depth from en- 

 trance was 15 inches. The entrance 

 and walls were smoothly chisled. The 

 three eggs differed greatly in size, 

 measuring 1.43x1.03. 1.41x1.02, and 

 1.28X.97 inches. Ten days later I 

 passed that way and hit the stub in 

 passing To my surprise the male ap- 

 peared at the entrance. I climbed to 

 the nest two days later, and found it 

 empty. The male was probably using 

 it for a roost while another nest was 

 being prepared elsewhere. During 

 the winter following, some cutting 

 was done in the grove and the stub 

 just mentioned was cut down and 

 hauled away. I carefully searched the 

 grove for other holes and found a 

 number, sufficient to indicate that the 



birds had been nesting in the grove 

 for a period of ten years at least. 

 Several visits were made, but no birds 

 were seen or heard until the 11th of 

 May, when I found the male in the 

 hole used in '95. He drew back out 

 of sight as I approached and I did not 

 disturb him, thinking he was using 

 the old hole as a roost, but searched 

 elsewhere. My search took me some 

 distance from the stub, and I did not 

 return to investigate it that day. On 

 the 16th I was again at the stub, but 

 no birds were in sight, and none ap- 

 peared when I pounded the stub. This 

 seemd to confirm my roosting theory 

 and I did not climb, but commenced 

 another unsucessful search. Toward 

 night, on the 20th, I went to the 

 grove again ajid found the male bird 

 in the '95 hole. He drew back as be- 

 fore. When I climbed his conduct 

 was much the same as it was the sea- 

 son previous; I was allowed to ascend 

 nearly to the hole before he left, and 

 he remained near, moving from tree 

 to tree, tapping on the trunk and 

 limbs, alike indifferent to me and to 

 the fate of the contents of the nest. 

 The nest contained three eggs, coun- 

 terparts of those taken the previous 

 season. 



I could not see that the hole had 

 been changed in any way, but was 

 just as it was left in '95. It was sim- 

 ilar in shape to th '96 nest, the en- 

 trance being five inches in diameter, 

 the horizontal depth ten inches, and 

 the vertical depth, from entrance. 17 

 inches. In 1898, I was away from 

 home and did not return until May 

 14th. The next day I visited my 

 woodpecker grove, and found a new 

 hole had been dug in the old stub, a 

 little below the one last used. I 

 pounded the stub, but could start 

 nothing. On climbing, I was some- 

 what surprised to see the male leave 

 the old hole, already twice used. The 

 new hole was but partly dug; the old 



