'°'l910^"] General Notes. 215 



Nelson's Sparrow.— My 1907 list, sent to the 'Naturalist,' states that 

 it is common, also that it breeds here. My 1908 list states "rare" and 

 "seen but once"; also that it "breeds here." My 1909 list states, "com- 

 mon and breeding." Therefore, taking the observations as a whole, I 

 considered the bird was "fairly common." 



Lincoln's Sparrow. — I do not claim that my list is complete and I so 

 state in my article in 'The Auk' for October, 1909, where I say: "My list 

 would have been a great deal larger if I had been able to visit the districts 

 lying to the west and south, but as time would not permit me to do this 

 I will have to be content with the list here given and trust that new species 

 may be added each year until the list is complete." 



Philadelphia Vireo. — My 1908 hst sent to the 'Naturalist' states, "Very 

 rare"; also that it breeds here, which was correct for 1908. 'The Auk' 

 list says, "Very common," which was correct for 1909. These birds being 

 very numerous diu-ing the season of 1909 led me to conclude that they 

 were ver;/ common, which is correct. 



Brewer's Blackbird. — My 1908 list, in the 'Naturalist,' states: "Com- 

 mon at Edmonton — but rare here," which was absolutely correct. Trav- 

 elling over a greater territory in 1909 I found these birds to outnumber 

 the Rusty Blackbird, hence my statement in 'The Auk' to that effect. 



Golden Eye. — My 1908 list, in the 'Naturalist,' stated this bird was 

 "very rare"; also that it bred here. 'The Auk' list states this bird is 

 "Quite common during the spring and fall and met with occasionally dur- 

 ing the summer. A nest found near here with ten eggs." These birds 

 being more numerous during 1909 than during 1908 led me to make the 

 above statement. 



During the years 1907, 1908, and 1909, I kept a very careful record 

 of the birds of this locality on forms supplied me by the Biological Survey 

 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. As my 1907 list was made up it 

 was complete in itself, and for 1907 only. When my 1908 hst was made 

 up it was also complete in itself, and for 1908 only. When my 1909 list 

 was made up it was complete in itself, and for 1909 only. 



The list of birds appearing in the 'Ottawa Naturalist' for October, 1909, 

 was made up by the editor of that journal from the duplicate copies which 

 I made for the U. S. Biological Survey and were for the years 1907 and 

 1908 only, without any annotations aside from those noted in the reports. 



The list sent to 'The Auk' was taken from my 1906 observations and 

 from the duplicate copies which I made for the U. S. Biological Survey 

 for the years 1907, 1908 and 1909, with annotations. Therefore it is very 

 easy to see why the two lists slightly differ. 



If this list does not harmonize with Mr. Saunders's or other lists taken 

 in this locality I cannot help it, but I would have him understand fully 

 that because it does not agree with other lists is no sign whatever that it is 

 not correct. 



I hope this will fully explt>in the so called discrepancies and corrections 

 pointed out by Mr. Saunders. — Sidney S. S. Stansell, Edmonton, Alberta. 



