120 General Notes. 



(Lanius ludovicianns) occin'ring in New England lias been placed at my 

 disposal by Mr. Charles F. Goodluie, of Webster, N. H., who has kindly 

 forwarded me a specimen for examination which was taken near Concord, 

 N. H., January 20, 1879. — Ruthven Deane. 



The White-rumped and Loggerhead Shrikes in Ohio. — On 

 the 22(1 of August, 1878, I took a well-marked example of Colliirio ludovi- 

 cianus var. excubitoroides at Madisonville, which upon dissection proved to 

 be a male " young of the year." It had attained its full plumage, how- 

 ever, the under parts being immaculate, and the dorsal surfaces showing 

 no traces of the bufly suffusion and transvei'se vei-miculation usually ob- 

 servable in the young of this genus ; the clear, pale bluish-ashy of its 

 upper parts, with the conspicuously white rump and superciliary line, pro- 

 claimed its relationship at a glance. Its capture here will be regarded 

 with interest by oi'nithologists, this being the southeasternmost point at 

 which it has been recorded ; and is of additional significance on account 

 of the occurrence here of the typical C. ludovicianus, which is a regular 

 though somewhat rare summer resident in this vicinity, where it has been 

 found breeding * on three occasions at least. — Frank W. Langdon, 

 Madisonville, Hamilton Co., 0. 



The Great Northern Shrike in New England. — I wish to cor- 

 rect an important error into Avhich Dr. Coues has inadvertently fallen in 

 his " Birds of the Colorado Valley," where he says : " In narrating an 

 instance of its nesting on a low spruce-tree in New Brunswick, within 

 twelve miles of St. Stephen, Dr. Brewer is certainly mistaken in asserting 

 that ' we know of a single recent instance in which this bird has bred 

 within the limits of the United States.' " The error of Dr. Coues is in his 

 supposition that the nest in question was in New Brunswick. On the con- 

 trary, it was in the State of Maine, some twelve miles west of the town of 

 St. Stephen, and about the same distance from any part of New Bruns- 

 wick. This error may have been occasioned by an erratum that occurs in 

 a sentence that follows the one quoted. This sentence should read : " He 

 has since met with its nest within twelve miles of St. Stephen in New 

 Brunswick." In the work the last three words are out of their proper 

 place. My positive statement that the nest had been found within the 

 limits of the United States Avas no careless mistake, but the statement of a 

 well-known fact of which I had full knowledge when I penned it. [t] 



* See the writer's "Observations on Cincinnati Birds," Journal Cincinnati 

 Sec. Nat. Hist., Vol. I, 1878, p. 114. 



[t Dr. Brewer's wliole paragraph comes from a misinterpretation, doubtless 

 unintentional, of my remarks. Dr. Brewer's mistake, which I criticised, was 

 in saying that " we know of a single recent instance," etc., the fact being, that 

 Me know of many such instances, if the testimony of competent observers is to 

 go for anything. See B. C. V., I, 561. — E. 0.] 



