THE OREGON NATURALIST. 
27 
He has made a misquotation and then 
charged me with an error. 
if he will read the article he will see that I 
desciibe the taking of five eggs from a nest, 
and in two weeks finding four more in the 
To 
this was not a continuous set, and he would 
same nest, making nine in all be sure 
be justified in taking exceptions. I have never 
found a nest containing eight eggs, but I have 
seen a set of eight said to have been taken 
from the one nest, and I have every reason to 
believe that such was the case. I have found 
two nests in each of which there were eight 
young birds. I have also found a nest with 
only one young bird, and another with only 
two, but supposed that they were survivors of 
a larger brood. 
Then he says I stated the phoebe builds its 
nest where neither wind, rain or the direct rays 
of the sun can reach it; and asks how the 
nest, which I described as being situated ‘‘on 
the top of a post, about six feet from the 
ground,” was protected. Replying. to this 
question, I will merely state, the post in ques- 
tion was in the interior of a sugar house, 
which was boarded on three sides, and_par- 
tially on the fourth, and covered with a good, 
well-shingled roof. 
I beheve the foregoing letter answers his 
criticism, If he will read carefully the num- 
erous ornithological papers, he will see many 
If he 
can find any misstatements I shall be glad if 
he will call my attention to them, either by 
articles to which my name is attached. 
letter, or otherwiss but; I trust that he will 
make no more misquotations in his published 
criticisms. 
Now I would like to ask him a question: In 
his cescription of nests numbered one, two, 
three, four, five and seven, he states they were 
plastered to the sides of various articles. Does 
he mean that they were cemented to perpen: 
dicular surfaces, and resting upon no support? 
I ask merely for information. I am aware that 
habits of birds differ in different localities, but 
have never known of a phoebe’s nest so con- 
structed. Yours truly, 
C. O, ORMSBEE, 
Montjelier, Vt. 
Jan. 28th. 1895. 
To THE Epitor OF THE NATURALIST: 
My Dear Sir—J notice in the January issue 
of THE NaTurALIsT that ‘‘Amicus Avium” 
asks in regard to the phoebe having been seen 
winter time north of the Mason & 
Dixon line. In answer I would say that on 
January 17, 1895, at which time there was 
over a foot of snow on the gound, I heard a 
in the 
Phoebe singing in a tree near where I stood. 
I did not see the bird, but there cannot be 
I 
stood for fully five minutes listening; and the 
the least shadow of doubt in regard to it. 
song of the Phoebe is not the one that resem- 
bles any other bird’s in a sufficient degree to 
easily deceive a person at all conversant with 
the bird. 
Very truly yours, 
FreD. W. PARKHURST 
Bath, N. Y. 
Feb. 13th. 1895. 
OVER THREE THOUSAND NEW 
NATURAL HISTORY SPECIES. 
Three thousand new varieties of wasps, beetles 
spiders, diagon flies and other insects, a new 
species of Peripatus that supplies the missing 
link between the worm and the centipede, and 
two Sierra Madre peaks before unnamed, form 
part of the results of the exploration of Lower 
California and the mainland of Mexico by Dr. 
Gustav Eisen and Frank Vaslit, who have 
returned from their journey, taken at the in- 
stance of the California Academy of Sciences. 
There are 40,000 natural history specimens 
now stored away in the academy asa result of 
the trip, which will be arranged and classified 
by the insect specialists. The academy can 
now boast of having the largest natural his- 
tory collection from Lower California and 
Mexico in the world. 
the OREGON 
NATURALIST in a new adress this month, and 
type for that purpose has been ordered from 
the East, 
transit, had not reached us at time of going 
It was the intention to put 
but, owing to being delayed in 
to press, and in consequence delayed the 
the NATURALIST 
which we hope our readers will overlook. 
publishing of on time, 
