March, 1884.] 



AND OOLOGIST. 





male bird. I was therefore particularly 

 pleased to see him make his appearance on 

 this occasion, as it removed some unfa- 

 vorable opinions about them which I had 

 begun to entertain. 



As I took my first nests of this species 

 in 1874, their breeding here embraces a 

 period of nine years at least. And as I 

 was obliged to capture the first two fe- 

 males for identification, neither they nor 

 their offspring could have been the parents 

 of these last two nests. This would seem 

 to indicate that it was not entirely acci- 

 dental that one or even two pairs had 

 dropped out of the migration and remained 

 so far south of their usual breeding- 

 grounds, but rather that at least a colony 

 had been established here for many years. 

 It would be interesting to know just how 

 this was first brought about. But it would 

 be reasonable to suppose that it began 

 with a single nest. A bird may have been 

 in some way partially disabled so that she 

 could not continue her flight, or the neces- 

 sities of maternity may have checked it, 

 and making a home where she could, that 

 would be the home of her offspring as 

 truly as though it were farther north, and 

 the jslace which they would naturally seek 

 on their return the next season. There is 

 no reason why the same thing might not 

 happen to any of the species of small birds 

 which habitually proceed to the far north 

 to spend the summer. A more thorough 

 observation of their migratory and breed- 

 ing habits will doubtless result in modify- 

 ing many current opinions respecting them. 



It is an interesting question, and de- 

 serving of careful investigation, whether 

 there is in any of the more northern sum- 

 mer residents and particularly the sylvi- 

 colidae, a tendency to shift or extend their 

 breeding range further south "? The con- 

 stant destruction of the northern forests 

 must produce climatic changes to some ex- 

 tent, and probably will affect the food sup- 

 ply. But is this change of such character 

 and extent as to produce any perceptible 



change, as yet, in the summer residence of 

 these birds °i And on the other hand is 

 there a tendency in any species to push 

 farther north as the country becomes more 

 open '? — C. ill. .Tones, Eastford, Conn. 



Winter Birds of Locke, Mich. 



A list of the Winter birds of Locke, 

 Michigan, seen in December, 1882, and 

 January and February, 1883, with dates of 

 their occurrence or capture. 



DECEMBER, 1882. 



1. Chickadee, (Parus atricapillus,) 22. 



2. White-bellied Nuthatch, (Sitta caro- 

 Unensis,) 5, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29. 



3. Butcher Bird, (Lanius borealis,) 8, 

 16. 



4. Lesser Red-poll, (^Egisthus linaria,) 

 6, 10, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 

 30, 31. 



5. Yellow Bird, ( Chrysonvitris tristis,) 5. 



6. Snow Bunting, (Plectrophanes ni- 

 valis,) 20. 



7. Tree Sparrow, (Spizetta montieola,) 

 13, 16, 17, 18. 



8. English Sparrow, {Passer domesti- 

 cus,) 1, 9, 12, 26, 27. 



9. Blue Jay, ( Cyanurus cristaius.) 5, 

 22, 24, 25, 27. 



10. Pileated Woodpecker, (Hylotomus 

 pileatus,) 24, two seen. 



11. Hairy Woodpecker, (Picus villo- 

 sus,) 5, 21, 24, 25, 29. 



12. Downy Woodpecker, (Picus pubes- 

 cens,) 25, 29. 



13. Carolina Woodpecker, (Centuries 

 caroUnus,) 22, 24, 25. 



14. Highholder, (Colaptes auratus,) 16. 



15. Barred Owl, (Syrnium nebulosum,) 

 20. 



16. Acadian Owl, (JVyctale aoadica,) 13. 



17. Mourning Dove, (Zenrndura oaro- 

 linensis,) 9, 10, 18. 



18. Wild Turkey, (Meleagris gallopa- 

 vo,) 20. 



19. Buffed Grouse, (Bonasa umbelhts,) 

 22, 24. 



