330 



THE OOLOGIST. 



Brayton includes it as a rare winter vis- 

 itor in Northern Indiana, and if he is 

 correct then this Owl may be found at 

 times in the southern part of our state. 

 As this species only nests at the far 

 north it will not be required to describe 

 the nest and eggs. 



Richardson's Owl, 'Sparrow Owl,' 

 Nyctala tengmalmi richardsoni (Bonap). 

 Embraced by Covert's Birds of the 

 Lower Peninsula 1878. He says it is a 

 rare winter visitor and mentions the 

 capture of two specimens. Again in his 

 list of Birds of Washtenaw county, 1881, 

 he says: 'A rare winter visitor, only 

 two specimens have been secured'" G. 

 A. Stockwell in Birds of Michigan, pub- 

 lished in Forest and Stream, reference 

 not now at hand, embraces this Owl as 

 a bird of the Upper Peninsula. J. A. 

 Allen,Esq.says that this bird is probably 

 a winter visitor in our U. P. as it has 

 been taken in Ohio, Illinois and Wiscon- 

 sin. A rare straggler. 



Saw- whet Owl; Acadian Owl, Ny- 

 ctala acadica (Gmel). This is our small- 

 est Owl. Dr. H. Atkins took one at 

 Locke, Dec. 18, '82, which weighed less 

 than two ounces, Some observations 

 have been made in the state which lead 

 me to think that the collectors con- 

 funded this species with megascops, and 

 particularly is this probable in the nest- 

 ing notes. Errors will creep into the 

 best of lists and where persons of auth- 

 ority make even more serious mistakes, 

 and wrongfully accredit a strictly Pac- 

 ific slope species to Michigan, it be- 

 comes a serious matter as well as ridicul- 

 ous in the extreme. One obsolete cata- 

 logue of winter birds embraced the Pig- 

 my Owl, Qlaucidium gnoma, Wagl. as 

 a Michigan bird, and Professor J. B. 

 Steere of the State University at Ann 

 Arbor makes the same error, by inclu- 

 ding the Pigmy as a state resident in his 

 Migration of Michigan Birds published 

 in 1880. I merely mention this to illus- 

 trate now seriously an authority can ef- 



fect the accuracy of the notes of the 

 younger observors of the state. A great 

 many collectors immediately called 

 their Acadian Owls, "Piginys" and an 

 occasional question comes up regarding 

 this error, even at this late date. 



The Acadian Owl is so generally re- 

 ported that authorities will not be pres- 

 ented. From Sager's time in the thir- 

 ties to the present nearly all observers- 

 in both -peninsulas have found it and I 

 am satisfied that it is a generally distri- 

 buted species but never common. 



It is reported to nest in Indiana. Cov- 

 ert reports one nest in Washtemaw 

 county, Michigan on May 23, 1879, and 

 adds that it is a "very common winter- 

 visitor." I do not think this applica- 

 tion "very common" is suited to this 

 species anywhere in America and it is 

 to be doubted if any collector could bag 

 two specimens per day for a month in 

 any locality. Collectors of Kalamazoo 

 covin ty,, which lies one hundred miles 

 west of Washtenaw have not secured 

 six specimens, all told, in twenty years. 



The nests have been taken in Oakland 

 county and the downy young captured 

 in Kent county. The globular, white, 

 eggs, five to seven in number, are de- 

 posited on the chips at the bottom of an 

 excavation, generally an old Woodpeck- 

 ers habitation. 



I have heard the odd stridulous notes 

 which somewhat resemble the noise 

 produced by filing a saw and from 

 which this Owl gets one of its names. 



A Problem. 



It is a curious fact in studying 

 birds, that we often find two nearly re- 

 lated species replace each other in one 

 locality though they both have the 

 same range. 



I have seldom taken a walk without 

 seeing one or more Scarlet Tanagers, 

 yet I have seen but one specimen of the 

 Summer Tanager though I am told the 



