’ 
256 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 
The other birds sent were as below, to which are added Dr. Nicholls’s 
notes: 
1. HUPHONIA FLAVIFRONS (Sparm.). 
‘‘ Bird’ caught at head of Roseau Valley; never seen in the island 
until lately. Feathers of breast curl up over the wings when the bird is 
at rest, and during sleep the bird is rolled up like a ball.” 
2. MYIADESTES GENIBARBIS, Sw 
‘‘ Siflem montagne.” 
3. ELAINEA MARTINICA (Linn.). 
“Caught in Roseau; white feathers on Read very conspicuous when 
bird at rest.” 
4, HREUNETES PETRIFICATUS (Ill.). 
““¢ Bécass ;’ common at the mouths of the rivers during the hurricane 
months.” 
5. CHARADRIUS VIRGINICUS, Borkh. 
“Oiseau marine.’ Shot in plowed land near to Roseau in November, 
1878.” 
6. TRINGA MACULATA, Vieill. 
“¢Bat-ma.”’ Caught in December, 1878, near to the mouth of the 
Roseau River.” 
Professor Baird has lately received from Dr. Nicholls a letter, dated 
25th May, 1880, with another consignment of birds, of which I give the 
names and the notes of Dr. Nicholls thereon:. 
1. CHRYSOTIS NICHOLLSI, Lawr. 
“The green parrot which [ have been so long trying to obtain. It is 
now scarce and is seldom seen away from the deepest woods of the 
widest part of the island. It builds its nest in the forks of the highest 
forest trees, and it is usually seen in flocks. It is called by the natives 
‘perroquet,’ which is simply French for parrot. As an example of the 
difficulty in obtaining this parrot I may mention that although I offered 
a good reward for a dead specimen I failed to get one. The specimen 
now sent was shot by a friend of mine; it was evidently a bird which 
had strayed from a flock.” 
Dr. Nicholls says of it in his letter: “It may possibly turn out to be 
the ‘green parrot’ which Mr. Ober failed to obtain.” 
I inter from the above that Dr. Nicholls considered this to be different 
from those sent a year ago, as in his letter of that date he says: “T am 
sorry to say that I have been unable to obtain specimens of the green 
parrot, but I hope to be successful before long.” 
This specimen, however, only differs from the type of C. nichollst in 
being smaller, with a weaker bill, which is quite dusky in color. 
Dr. Nicholls may be correct in his suggestion that it is the “ parrot” 
No. 33 of the Dominica catalogue. If so, Mr. Ober must have been mis- 
led as to its size, which he states to have been that of the Carolina 
parrot. D 
