So General Notes. [£j£ 



Astragalinus psaltria mexicanus Ridgway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. Ill, 

 Aug. 27, iSSo, 177. 



531. Astragalinus lawrencei (Cassin). 



Astragalinus lawrenceii Ridgway, Proc U. S. Xat. Mus. III. Aug. 27, 

 18S0, 177. 



The remaining species ranged under Spinas in the A. O. U. Check-List 

 should remain in that genus. — Robert Ridgway. Washington, D. C. 



Lapland Longspur (Calrarius lapponicus) in Massachusetts in Win- 

 ter. — The statement that there is but one winter record of the Lapland 

 spur in New England (Brewster's Minot's Land and Game Birds 

 of New England, page 194) makes it interesting to record a second occur- 

 rence. The record above was at Brandon. Vermont. February 21, 1879. 

 On February 22. 1892, Mr. II. F. Kendall of Cambridge. Mass., >liot a 

 spur (unsexed) among a flock of Horned Larks at Duxbury, Mass. 

 There were two Longspurs in the flock feeding on the beach, but one 

 ted from the Larks as thej flew up, and could not be found. The fact 

 that the birds were in w.'nter plumage among a flock of Horned Larks, 

 would seem to show that they could hardly have been early migrants. 

 The specimen that was shot is in Mr. Kendall's collection. — Mi not 

 Afass. 



Henslow's Sparrow in Ontario. — I have to record the first capture of 

 - - I imodramiis henslov.ii in Canada, and its pres- 



ence in fair number- at different localities. At the north of the Thames 

 River (Lake St. Clair) two were taken on May 24. and June 12.1S9S: while 

 -arnia, forty miles north, on July 2. two more were shot. Altogether 

 about twelve specimens were seen and heard, and it seems probable that 

 thev are regular breeders in the western end of Ontario, their unobtrusive 

 habits accounting for their not having been previously noted. 



The birds were all in wet meadows not far from marshy ground, and 

 while not particularly wild, were so difficult to see on the ground, and 

 of exposing themselves above it, that we saw probably only a 

 few of those actually- present. — \V. K. Sauxders, London. Out. 



On the Generic Name Aimophila versus Peucaea. — In a footnote on 

 '..ik" for July. 1898, I expressed my inability " to di 

 anv characters sufficient to separate Peuc<ea from Aimophila. mile*- t lie 

 former be restricted to P. aestivalis, P. bottert. and P. cassin i." After 

 careful reconsideration of the matter. I am only the more firmly con- 

 vinced that the generic name Aimophila must be used for Ammodramus 

 rup'ceps Cassin, and its subspecies, together with Peucaea carpalis Coues. 

 Some doubt exists as to the latter, the relationship of which is without 

 doubt closer to Aimophila suniichrasti Lawrence than to any other species ; 

 but in anv event, P. carpalis is not a Peuccva, and since it must be 

 removed from the last named genus (in event of its recognition as dis- 



