IztO Correspondence. [January 



in 'The Auk' for Julj, there were three accessions to the District fauna 

 during the year 18S5, viz. : — (i) English Teal (Anas crecca), shot on 

 the Potomac River near Washington, in April, and presented to the 

 National Museum (No. 106,061). (2) Stilt Sandpiper (Micropalama 

 /limantopus), taken on the Pawtuxent River, Maryland, September 8, by 

 Mr. H. W. Henshaw, who has kindly communicated these data to me. 

 This capture vv'as made beyond the regular District boundary, but was, 

 however, included in what has been tacitly regarded as its faunal and floral 

 limits. (3) Northern Phalarope (Pkalaropus lobatus), killed on the eastern 

 branch of the Potomac, October 17, by Mr. F. S. Webster, in whose 

 possession the bird now is. 



A perusal of the catalogues of the bird department of the National 

 Museum shows some interesting entries. Through the courtesy of Mr. 

 Ridgway, the curator, I have been enabled to examine the twenty large 

 volumes in which the collection is invoiced, with some interesting results, 

 only one of which need be mentioned at this time. The first volume, 

 which carries us back into the forties and represents the private collection 

 of Professor Baird and his brother, shows the following entries : — 



'■•Tringa alpina, $ [= ? ad.], Oct. 22, 1842. Washington, D. C." 

 (No. 848.) 



•'Pelidna alphia. $ , Oct. 20. 1842, Washington, D. C." (No. 105,3.) 



The Dunlin is not given in any of the lists of the birds of the District; 

 and although the above captures were made nearly half a century ago, 

 they are 'new' to the fauna. — Hugh M. Smith, National Museum, 

 Washington, D. C. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



^Correspondents are requested to tarite briedy and to the point. No attention will 

 be paid to anotiymous coinmunicationsP\ 



Turner's List of the Birds of Labrador. 



To THE Editors of The Auk : — 



Sirs: In reply to your criticism in 'The Auk' for October, 1885 (pp. 

 368, 369) upon my List of the Birds of Labrador, etc. (Proc. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus., VIII, 1885, pp. 233-254), I would slate that you have evidently mis- 

 • construed the List. It was intended only to present under that heading a 

 list somewhat approaching the character of a catalogue of the birds of the 

 region embraced within that heading. 



Access was had to all the material bearing upon the subject, and it was 

 compiled as concisely as possible. With that material was incorporated 

 the briefest possible references to the species of birds obtained by me. I 

 deemed it necessary to give only a scanty sketch of Ungava. a hitherto 

 unknown district. 



