Vel REN) Hersey, The Black-throated Loon in N. A. 287 
considerations only’ at a time when probably no one doubted the 
occurrence of that species in North America and that it was not 
based on a specimen. We were, unfortunately, not so particular 
about such things in the earlier days.” 
Wisconsin: It is supposed that the Black-throated Loon has 
been taken three times in Wisconsin. Kumlien and Hollister 
refer to these records (Birds of Wisconsin) very briefly. One is 
said to have been taken at Milwaukee and to be in the Public 
Museum of that city. Mr. Henry L. Ward, director of that 
institution, writes under date of February 8, 1917, “I have been 
trying to run down the reported Black-throated Loon contained 
in this museum, but can find no trace of it at all. The specimen 
is evidently not contained in any of our series of mounted birds, 
nor in the series of bird-skins.” Another bird, taken at Racine, 
is reported to be in the collection of Dr. Hoy and a bird said to 
have been shot in 1860 on Rock River, near Janesville, in the 
collection of a gentleman from Rockford, Illinois. Mr. Hollister 
says of these records (letter February 20, 1917), the Rock River 
record “is from the notes of Thure Kumlien and considering the 
date and circumstances I should not accept it as a real record 
to-day.” He further says, “I have been over the Hoy collection 
very carefully and do not remember seeing the specimen recorded 
from his collection, but as the Hoy collection was left without any 
labels whatever (except the name of the bird) and his records were 
not to be found, that record would be far from satisfactory.” 
He concludes, “At any rate, I am prepared to drop the bird from 
the Wisconsin list.”’ 
Michigan: It was once supposed that this species occurred in 
Michigan but the latest authority on the birds of that State, 
Prof. W. B. Barrows (Michigan Bird Life) does not accept any of 
these records. He says, “ We have been unable to find a Michigan 
specimen in any collection, and have been equally unsuccessful 
in finding an unquestionable record of its occurrence. Until 
something more definite can be shown it seems best to exclude it 
from the regular list.” 
Minnesota: Dr. P. L. Hatch (Notes on the Birds of Minnesota) 
lists this species on the strength of supposed specimens seen be- 
tween 1858 and 1869. No birds were secured. 
