ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. 45 



To my mind it is simply an absurdity to speak of a species as resident 

 when not one individual of the entire species resides in any part of New 

 England more than a fraction of the year. The word " race " is still a 

 good English word, the meaning of which is so obvious that there is no 

 occasion for misunderstanding it. According to Worcester it is " a series 

 of descendants from one stock." In this sense, and in this only, our Sum- 

 mer and our Winter Robins are of diflerent races, though specifically the 

 same. 



Corvus americanus, considered as a bird of all New England, is almost 

 exclusively a suijimer resident. The few that winter are the exception, 

 not the rule ; are restricted to a very small part of New England ; and are 

 probably merely winter visitants from bej^ond our borders, and therefore 

 not residents. What your correspondent quotes from my language in ref- 

 erence to Picus villosus had reference to all the United States, and not ex- 

 clusively to New England, though in a more restricted sense it is also 

 applicable. I cheerfully admit that in this case it would have been 

 more correct, on my part, to have given it qualified as partially a resident. 



It is not safe to assume, because a limited number of individuals of the 

 other four species named are occasionally taken here in the winter, that 

 they are necessarily resident. Without attempting to generalize, on data 

 to my mind insufficient, I confined myself to that feature in their New 

 England life in regard to which there would not be two opinions, leaving 

 in abeyance all that admits of controversy. These birds are probably 

 only winter visitants, and in no proper sense resident, or only very ex- 

 ceptionally resident. 



Your correspondent takes up nearly a third of his second article with 

 various opinions as to the occurrence in New England of the five species 

 that formed the subject of his interrogation in his first article. But when 

 I ask for bread he gives me only a stone. I ask for facts, and he gives me 

 only opinions. He does not cite a single reference that I had not already 

 fully considered. In one instance, while he goes back several years to cite 

 opinions then expressed, but long since given up, he omits to quote the 

 views now entertained by the same party, and in entire variance with 

 what he does cite. In reference to Quiscalus major, he quotes Dr. Coues's 

 opinion given in 1868. Twice since then Dr. Coues has publicly given 

 his opinion against the occurrence of this species north of the Carolinas ; 

 first, in his admirable biography (Ibis, IV. 1870) of this bird, where he 

 speaks of it as " restricted to a narrow belt along the coast of the ocean 

 and gulf from North Carolina to Mexico, and as rarely ever occurring 

 north of the Carolinas"; secondly, in a work with which, judging from 

 his quotations, your correspondent seems to be sufficiently familiar (Birds 

 of the Northwest, p. 204), where he speaks of it as " not authentic in New 

 England." Why rake up an opinion given nine years ago and long since 

 disclaimed ? Why omit his real opinion now ? Dr. Linsley was a cor- 

 respondent of mine, and from his o\vn account of this species I was satis- 



