64 The Wilson Bulletin— No. G3. 



ther modifies his views :" Continues to be unknown. * * * 

 There certainly was such a l)ird. for Wilson floured it, and 

 he never drew upon his imagination ; but we do not re- 

 cognize his plate, nor that c f A'udubon. Tiie mysterious bird 

 has been claimed for New Jersey, Kentucky, Massachusetts, 

 Wisconsin, and Kansas. T have long believed it to be the 

 Pine-creeping Warbler." Ridgway evidently is not of Coues' 

 opinion, stating as late as 1902, that " I am unable to satis- 

 factorily dispose of (his hypothetical species by reference to any 

 other, the peculiar combination of characters indicated in the 

 original description, * * * being sliared by no other bird to my 

 knowledge." Audubon has the following to say in reference" 

 to Wilson's undoubtedly erroneous New Jersey records: "All 

 nxy endeavors to trace it in that section of the country have 

 failed, as have those of my friend Edward Harris, Escp, who 

 is a native of that state, resides there, and is well acquainted 

 with all the birds fo'und in that district. I have iiever seen 

 it out of Kentucky, and even there it is a very uncommon 

 ])ird. In Philadelphia, Paltimore, New York, or further east- 

 ward or southward, in oiu" Atlantic district, I never saw a 

 single individual, not even in museums, private collections, 

 or for sale in bird-stuffer's shops." Brewer remarks : "Au- 

 dubon throws a doubt as to the correctness of Wilson's state- 

 ment that they have been found in New Jersey, as no one else 

 has ever met with any there. That may be, however, and 

 Wilson's statement yet be correct. The same line of argu- 

 ment carried out would reject the very existence of the bird 

 itself, as no well authenticated records of its occurring since 

 them can be found. They are at least too doubtful to be 

 received as unquestionable until the genuine bird can be 

 produced." And Baird points out that the mere fact of a 

 bird being no longer found, hardly warrants the conclusion 

 that it never existed. 



Audubon believed it bred in lower Kentucky, and Chapman, 

 writing within the present year, is not prepared to say that 

 it does not. " Whatever may have been the original of Wil- 

 son's Muscicapa miniita there cam be no question that no such 

 bird as he describes now mests, as he supposed, in New Jersey. 



