750 MICHIGAN BIRD LIFE. 
to find any record which can be authenticated. It is possible that it 
may occur in winter, but it seems very improbable that it is a summer 
resident or even a regular winter visitor in any numbers. In general 
habits it closely resembles its nearest relative. 
Fork-tailed Flycatcher. Muscivora tyrannus (Linn.). (442) 
Readily recognized by its general resemblance to the common Kingbird, 
but the tail remarkably long and deeply forked, the outer feathers often 
9 or 10 inches in length. 
This can be regarded only as an accidental visitor, if indeed it has actually 
occurred at all in Michigan. At present its claim to a place in our fauna 
rests on the fact that in June 1882, Dr. Morris Gibbs was shown a specimen 
of this bird in the collection of A. B. Covert which was said to have been 
taken at Lake Ridge, Lenawee county, Mich., in July 1879. We have 
been unable to trace this specimen and are of the opinion that the species 
has no right to a place in the Michigan list. 
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. Muscivora forficata (Gmel.). (443) 
There seems to be no record of this species for Michigan. 
Traill’s Flycatcher. Empidonax trailli trailli (Aud.). (466) 
Not separable from the Alder Flycatcher, or even from the Acadian, 
except by an expert. 
Distribution.—Western North America from the Mississippi Valley 
south of latitude 42° to the Pacific, and from the Fur Countries south 
into Mexico. 
It is not impossible that this species may occur during migration in 
the half dozen southwestern counties of the state, but we do not know 
of a record of its capture. It is so similar to the Alder Flycatcher, with 
which it was confounded previous to 1895, that records of specimens 
seen are entirely valueless. In general habits, nest and eggs, this species 
seems to be identical with its sub-species alnorum. 
Fish Crow. Corvus ossifragus Wiis. (490) 
Very similar in appearance to the common Crow, but averaging much 
smaller, large specimens of the latter being nearly or quite twice as heavy 
as small Fish Crows, but only an expert can separate large Fish Crows from 
small specimens of the Common Crow. 
Distribution.—Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, from southern Connecticut 
to Louisiana. Common in the lower Hudson Valley; casual in Mass- 
achusetts. 
It is extremely improbable that the Fish Crow has any right to a place 
in our Michigan list. No Michigan specimen exists in any museum so 
far as can be learned, and apparently all the references but one are based 
upon the statement of Archer” (G. A. Stockwell), who says “Frequently 
seen in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes of Michigan” (Forest and 
Stream, Vol. VIII, No. 19, p. 300). There is a specimen of genuine 
ossifragus in the University Museum at Ann Arbor bearing the label “Fish 
Crow. State Geological Survey, Michigan” but since similar labels were 
