1S84.I General Nofcs. 397 



the article " ?i\\<\ ^'■cinbotUcd the a(hlit ions, to the list made mcamvhile, by 

 others." It would seem, thoui^h, that but two or three of the numerous 

 working ornithologists of the District have been consulted, and these 

 rather for notes on a few specified species than for general information. 



As a result, while they add eight species to Jouj's list (Catalogue of 

 the Birds of the District of Columbia, by P. L. Jouy, 1877, which added 16 

 to Coues and Prentiss's list of 1S62), thej omit five more, viz. : Sander- 

 ling, Calidris arciiaria (L.) 111.; Yellow 'R.^W, Porzatia noveboracensis 

 (Gmel.) Bd. ; Sawwhet Owl, Nyctale acadica (Gmel.) Bp. ; Turnstone, 

 Strepsilas interpres (L.) 111. ; and American Pelican, Peleenntis ery- 

 throrhynchus Gmel.* Tliis does not include two, M.ilospiza lincolni 

 (Aud.) Bd. and Aegialitcs mcladus circiniiri/tctus Ridg. , which h^ve been 

 obtained since 'Avifauna Columbiana' went to press. Three birds men- 

 tioned as seen but not taken, but which should have been entered as taken, 

 are Archibuteo lagopus sa7icti-johan»is (Gm.) Ridg., Porzana jamaicevsis 

 (Gmel.), and Falco peregriniis (Tunst.) Cass. Many changes should 

 be made in the remarks on the habits, arrival, and departure of birds; at 

 least eight or ten of the birds noted as 'casual' or 'migrants' should be 

 made winter or summer residents. Some of these inaccuracies may be 

 owing to the changes which have occurred in the topography of the Dis- 

 trict. For instance, the formation of the great marshes in the Potomac, 

 ■which is noted in the preface, may have induced the Great White Egret, 

 Night Heron, and others to stay longer with us than they did twenty 

 years ago. But one of the expressed objects of the present edition was to 

 note and record these changes. In one or two instances the neglect to 

 record notes of j'ounger collectors almost lays their work open to more 

 serious charges : in one case information that had been volunteered in 

 regard to a nest and set of eggs of the Blue-winged Yellow Warbler 

 {Hehninthophila piirits), taken almost within the city limits, identified by 

 Mr. R. Ridgway, and still accessible in Mr. H. Birney's collection, was 

 entirely ignored. 



Again, rather than admit a very pardonable error in their first edition, 

 they try, by ex post facto evidence, to prove that Mr. P. L. Jouy and Mr. 

 R. Ridgway were wrong in correcting said error. In their original edi- 

 tion they entered two species of Titmice, one Pa? its carolinensis, as 'sum- 

 mer resident,' and the other, Pants atricapillus, as '-winter resident.' In 

 1877, when Mr. Jouy made his 'Catalogue of the Birds of the District of 

 Colum.bia,' this was the only District record of atricapill/es. and as speci- 

 mens of carolinensis bearing Coues and Prentiss's label of atricapillus are 

 still to be seen in the Smithsonian collection, Mr. Jouy evidently thought 

 that they had been deceived in their indentification of the bird, and struck 

 it out. In this he was justified by the following facts: (i) While P. 

 carolinensis is not a rare summer resident, it is verv abundant in the 

 winter; (:;) there was not a specimen oi atricapillus taken in the Dis- 



* For full notes on these birds see 'The Pastime,' Washington, D. C (Vol 3, Nos. i 

 and 2.) 



