I'.IKDS (>F MAINK. 



23 



Order TUBINARES. Tube-nosed Swimmers. 



Family PROCELLARIID.*:. Fulmars and Shearwaters. 

 Subfamily PROCELLARIIN^E. Fulmars. 

 Genus PUFFINUS Brisson. 



36. (89). Puffinus gravis ( O'Reilly) . Greater Shearwater. 

 The Shearwaters are birds of the open sea, but as they occur off 



our coast they can be given a place in the list, although it is doubt- 

 ful if they ever occur within the three mile limit of the coast. As 

 their occurrence off our coast has been satisfactorily demonstrated, 

 this species and the succeeding one are accordingly given a place 

 in the list. 



County Records. Cumberland, given in Brown's Catalogue of the 

 Birds of Portland as "being said to be rather common by fishermen"; 

 Washington, "common at sea" (Boardman). 



37. (94). Pufiinus stricklandi Ridcjw. Sooty Shearwater. 

 The notes on the preceding species will apply equally well here. 



County Records. Cumberland, "rarely seen except long distances 

 from land, there apparently common" (Brown's Cat. Birds of Portland, 

 }>. :;.") ; Washington, --rare at sea" (Boardman). 



Genus DAFITON Stephens. 



38. (102). Daption capensis (Linn.). Pintado Petrel. 



A specimen is recorded by Mr. H. A. Purdie in Steam's 4k New 

 England Bird Life," p. 387. In view of recent information from 

 Mr. Purdie, the locality given in the above as Harpswell would 

 now seem to be erroneous. In a recent letter under the date of 

 March 2d, he writes: "I happened to be in Worcester yesterday 

 on business. I went to the Natural History Rooms and saw my 

 bird still labeled Manx Shearwater, Lewiston, Me., June, 1875, and 

 this was the date and place that a Mr. Dickinson of the Worcester 

 Natural History Society purchased the bird with three or four 

 others of one Levi Woolev, who I understand then called it Manx 

 Shearwater and so it has stood ever since. Said Wooley now lives 

 in Waltham, and it seems has lately been to see the bird and 

 swears it is the bird he sold Dickinson in 1875, and I presume still 

 believes it to be as first identified by him. It is not unlikely that 

 the locality named, Harpswell, is wrong. At any rate Mr. Wooley 



