A Critique of Barrows' " Michigan Bird Life." 35 



Owosso in Jul}^ 1853, as Fox mentions no Grosse He bird. 

 This record is certainly a misidentification by Fox, as it is 

 not probable that he had ever examined actual specimens of 

 this species. The record does not appear in Baird's work,^ 

 although Fox was a correspondent of the Smithsonian In- 

 stitution and sent specimens there. The extent of Fox's 

 ornithological knowledge is of course unknown, as he only 

 issued a practically unannotated list of Michigan birds. He 

 was locally known more as a general naturalist, and was par- 

 ticularly interested in herpetology. The A. O. U. does not 

 accept his record and Sayoniis sayiis should be eliminated 

 from all consideration as a Michigan species. 



12. Passerherhidns lecontei. Leconte's Sparrow. — Bar- 

 rows gives only one record for this species as a Michigan 

 bird, A. B. Covert's claim that he secured a specimen at Ann 

 Arbor. There is a mounted bird in the University of Mith- 

 igan Museum (488q, date May 12, 1891), but there is grave 

 doubt that the specimen was taken in Michigan. Covert 

 never recorded it as one would naturally expect him to, vowing 

 to the fact that it was the first and only Michigan specimen. 

 As Covert's records are all open to such grave suspicion it 

 would seem best to eliminate this species from the Michigan 

 fauna. 



13. Hclmitheros vermivorus. Worm-eating Warbler. — This 

 is another species whose occurrence in Michigan rests on the 

 authority of Covert. Barrows quotes a record of Covert's, 

 from the latter's last manuscript list, " That he took a male 

 at Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, May 21, 1878. The speci- 

 men, however, has been lost sight of." There is no record of 

 this specimen in the University of Michigan Museum, where 

 it might naturally be expected to be. Moreover, Covert does 

 not include the species in his "Annotated List of the Birds 

 and Mammals of Washtenaw County, Michigan," issued in 

 March, 1881, and this list was supposed to be up to date. In 

 the Atkin's manuscript list of 1878 he says : " I can regard 

 this bird only as an accidental visitor. One specimen, a male, 



^ Pacific R. R. Rept, Vol. IX. 



