is\,i.] CorrispoinlvJKC. ^^9 



lished in ' The Auk " (Vol. VIII, p. 233), I think perhaps an exphTiiation 

 is tlue to that geiitloinan and to other readers of this journal. 



All assertions are in a way, I take it, comparative, and when I wrote 

 that 'there are ahsolutel}' no Heron Rookeries on the Gulf Coast of 

 Florida, from Anclote Keys to Cape Sahle " (Auk, Vol. VII, p. 221), I 

 was fully aware of the small isolated breeding ground recorded bj Mr. 

 lamison, as well as of a few others of similar character, though gener- 

 ally smaller, along the coast in question. 



But I think that if any of your readers could have accompanied me over 

 the same ground in 1S74, in 1S78, or even in iSSo, they would have fully 

 concurred with me in the statement quoted by Mr. Jamison, had they 

 traversed the ground again in the spring of 1890. 



It is true that there are still small isolated colonies of Herons breeding 

 this year on one mangrove island, and driven to another in the succeeding 

 years. But the great Heron Rookeries of Tampa Bay, Sai«iota Bay, 

 Charlotte Harbor, and the Thousand Islands, where the countless myriads 

 of Herons were so noticeable a feature in the landscape as to attract the 

 attention of any one. from a long distance, no longer exist. 



Not the three luiiidied nests that Mr. Jamison speaks of, but man\, 

 many t/ionsands of nests composed such rookeries, and he would have 

 patience indeed who could count the nests in a single acre of the two hun- 

 dred acres, or thereabouts, that are included in the single rookery known 

 as late as 1S7S as ' Maximo Rookery,' just west of and near the end of 

 Point Pinnellas at the mouth of Tampa Bay. At the same time in Char- 

 lotte Harbor there were at least five great rookeries of about equal size 

 that I knew from personal observation. So, when I pass over this same 

 ground now and find only here and there a few birds together, I feel I am 

 justified in the view expressed in ' The Auk ' and quoted hy Mr. Jamison. 



Very truly, 



jS William St., New Tork City. W. E. D. Scott. 



■ Birds of Greenland.' 

 To The Editors of The Auk. 



Dear Sirs: — I wish to make a few statements relating to the 

 just issued ' Binls of Greenland' by M. Chamberlain and myself. IJy 

 correspondence with Mr. Ilerlup Winge of the Zoological Museum of 

 Copenhagen I learn that two of the birds enumerated in the book are to 

 be omitted. I here cite a letter of Mr. Winge : — 



" .Vt least two species should be omitted :(i) Sfertia //inn/do {fiii-i'iatilis 

 Nauui). The insertion of this species must be due to misinterpretation of 

 synonj'ms. Only one species of Tern, the Arctic Tern (^Sterna niacrura 

 or 6'. faradisca^ being known from Greenland. 



(2) Emfidonax piisilliis. The Empidonax from Greenland in the 

 Zoological Museum of Copenhagen was wrongly entered by Reinhardt 

 as E. fn$ilh(s\ it is E Jiavivetitris, also later found in Greenland by Mr. 

 Kumlien. Reinhardt himself detected the error and labelled the speci- 

 men correctly." 



