138 
THE NIDOLOGIST 
Nesting of the Chimney Swift. 
BY C. W. AND J. H. BOWLES. 
HE Chimney Switt (Chaetura pelagica) 
1s altogether too well known to require 
much space as to its characteristics. 
Yet there are a few minor details in its 
habits that have escaped our notice, if ever 
fully described, which may make the less 
important details more endurable. 
The nest is composed of dead twigs and 
a few feathers, which are glued together by 
the saliva of the birds in the form ofa 
shallow cup, placed against the inner walls 
ofachimney. Originally, the birds are 
said to have nested in hollow trees and 
against cliffs or high rocks, and in some 
places reports come from time to time of 
nesting in buildings. 
In this locality the twigs preferred for the 
nest are those of the willow and elm, which 
the birds break from the trees while in full 
flight, with scarcely any hesitation, seem- 
ing to select the ones they wish as they 
approach. 
From six to sixteen feet down the chim- 
ney seems to be the favorite location, the 
latter distance being nearer the average 
than the former. 
Two sets of eggs are laid in a season, one 
in the latter part of May, anotber in early 
July. These consist of from three to four 
eggs; some writers say five, but we have 
never seen that number. They are most 
persistent in domestic duties, always build- 
ing a new nest as soon as the other is des- 
troyed. This is very often the case for 
numerous reasons, such as falling bricks 
and mortar, rain or another cause which is 
hardly necessary to mention. 
Smoke seems to make but little difference 
to the birds as we have knowr them to con- 
tinue incubation in a regularly used chim- 
ney, although an unused one is more often 
chosen. In this way they sometimes cause 
considerable annoyance by driving the 
smoke down into the room in their journ- 
eys to and from the nest. 
Collecting the eggs is, at best, uncertain 
but we have found the most successful ap- 
paratus to be a small stone wrapped in cot- 
ton. This is covered with glue and lowered 
at the end ofa string onto the eggs which 
will naturally stick and may then be 
drawn up all at once like a fish. 
The illustration shows the bird on the 
nest. 
This we photographed down the chimney 
of our house on July 10, several previous 
attempts having proved unsuccessful. 
+o 
The Check-List Again.—A Rejoinder,. 
To THE EDITOR OF THE NIDOLOGIST : 
EAR SIR:—I feel gratified that so eminent 
D a gentlemen as Dr. J. A. Allen should agree 
with me on ten of the twelve points 
raised in my first communication. I wish briefly 
to present reasons for still disagreeing with the 
List on the other two. 
No. 738 is given as Parus gambeli, Ridgw. I 
fail to see that the authority is correct, under the 
Code for the following reason. Parus montanus 
being preoccupied, Mr. Ridgway furnished the 
committee with the manuscript name gamzbelz for 
substitution. According to the Code, until pub- 
lished this is a omen nudum. Now who is the 
author of the List of 1886 where the name first ap- 
pears? Mr. Ridgway? No. Is the committee? Yes. 
How then, as Mss. authorities are rejected, can Mr. 
R. be cited in the 1895List as to full authority when 
he is but one-fifth of the committee? Is not a Mss. 
namie here credited unwittingly? 
Now take the Ground Dove. See Bull. Am. 
Mus. Nat. H. 1V. 1892, p. 292. The name ¢errestrzs 
is proposed on page 293 (not 292) where Mr. F.M. 
Chapman says, ‘‘and I suggest, therefore, that 
the Ground Dove of Eastern North America be 
known as Columbigallina passerina terrestris.” 
In this paper Mr. Chapman expressly says he has 
compared ‘‘some twenty’’ Floridan and ‘‘some 
forty” Jamaican specimens and then ‘“‘concludes” 
on the same page, “It is evident then that the 
name fasserina can no longer be accepted for the 
bird from eastern North America.”* As he cannot 
“affirm (p. 292) the identiy of the Bahaman (daha- 
manensis) and Cuban forms, and calls this latter 
“passerina, subsp.’’ where can we place derrestris 
but in the Southeastern States? Besides this name 
is proposed in place of purpurea, Maynard, who 
distinctly says ‘I propose the name Chamepelia 
purpurea for the large continental Dove!” For 
definition of ‘‘North American,” see Code p. 14, I. 
Also in his recent Handbook of Birds p. 190, Mr. 
‘Chapman gives the range of ferrestris as ‘‘South 
Atlantic and Gulf States north to North Carolina, 
west to Texas’ etc. Mr. Ridgway in the new1896 
Manual gives (p. 591) for this bird ‘‘Hab. South 
Atlantic and Gulf States. Not a word about the 
West Indies, yet these two gentlemen -have spec- 
ially investigated the different forms and examined 
much material. The new List gives ‘Geog. Dist. 
—South Atlantic and Gulf States, West Indies and 
northern South America!* Breeding, in the United 
States, from South Carolina to Louisiana, chiefly 
coastwise.’’? Thus, the name Zerrestris is absolute- 
ly based on the larger Floridan form and this 
name is accepted but not the habitat given for it ! 
If Mr. Chapman is right in the habitat, as I be- 
lieve that careful observer is,and intergradation is 
only assumed, as appears to be the case, why 
under the Code is this not a species? 
My use of the word unscientific is misleading. 
As the Union has but recently changed from a 
ten years use of Mss. authorities (without explan- 
ation) and the practice is by no means universal, 
I may perhaps be pardoned. Until a consistent 
