90 General Notes. [f.^'^ 



White-winged Crossbill. "Very rare, seen but once." The list in the 

 'Natviralist,' states that this is a common breeder, which may readily be 

 true in some seasons. 



Evening Grosbeak. "Quite rare." In the other list this bird is stated 

 to be a quite common breeder, which is doubtless incorrect. 



Nelson's Sparrow. "Fairly common"; the list in the 'Naturalist' states 

 that this bird was seen once. It is likely to be moderately common in 

 favorable localities. 



Lincoln's Sparrow is not reported in either list and has possibly been 

 confused with some other bird, as it is rather common through the country 

 to the south of the district in question, in the parts that I have visited. 

 Preble states that it is the common Song Sparrow of the region referred to. 

 It is therefore quite probable that, in the territory under review, Lincoln's 

 Sparrow is a moderately common bird. 



Philadelphia Vireo. "Very common." In the 'Naturalist' this bird 

 is referred to as " very rare," which is much more likely to be correct than 

 the other statement. 



Myrtle Warbler. Common in migration, but not found breeding. In 

 the 'Naturalist' this bird is given as a common breeder, which it probably 

 is, in the spruce districts. 



Magnolia Warbler. Given as "very common" but not found by him 

 nesting. " Cominon migrant." Given in 'Naturalist' as a common 

 breeder. This bird will probably be found as a breeder in selected locali- 

 ties. 



Brewer's Blackbird. "Somewhat more numerous" than the Rusty 

 Blackbird. Stated in the Naturalist to be rare, but the report in ' The Auk ' 

 is doubtless correct. 



Chipping Sparrow. "Quite common." The report in the ' Naturalist ' 

 gives this bird as "very rare," and my experiences in the vicinity would 

 lead me to give credence to the latter report much more readily than to 

 the former. 



Black-poll Warbler. "Very rare." Stated in the 'Naturalist' to be a 

 common breeder. The truth probably lies between these two statements. 



There are a number of other less important references that are probably 

 not strictly correct, but the most conspicuous ones are those mentioned 

 above. Doubtless many of these would have been avoided if Mr. Stansell 

 had considered the proof of his article after it had been set up. — W. E. 

 Saunders, London, Ont. 



Two Additions to the Avifauna of South Carolina. — On October 26, 

 1897, I shot a young male Zonotrichia leucophrys near Mount Pleasant. 

 The bird was in a corn field, perched upon a stalk, and I was attracted to 

 it by its peculiar call-note This is the first specimen I have ever seen or 

 taken during twenty-seven years of active field work. 



Although this species has been recorded by Audubon (Birds of America, 

 Vol. Ill, p. 158), who says: "In the winter of 1833, I procured at Charles- 



