144 The American Naturalist. (February, 
up the occurrences in summer and the evidence of its breed- 
ing in the region last referred to we note as follows. In the 
-summer of 1869 they were abundant in the vicinity of Chi- 
cago, both in Illinois and Indiana. In the summer of 1878 
they were found at Columbus, Ohio, and abundantly at Cleve- 
land where it was reported to have bred. Dr. Wheaton refers 
to their having nested in Indiana as a fact well known to 
him. Dr. H. A. Atkins is said to have taken nests of this spe- 
cies near Locke, Michigan, in 1880. The spring of 1885 they 
“were common at Michigan City, Indiana, and Mr. Brykit 
thought they might have nested. In’ the summer of 1885 
they were reported to have nested in Tippecanoe County, 
Indiana. The same summer they are reported to have nested 
at Bloomington, Indiana. They were reported from Monroe 
County, Indiana, three different dates in July, 1886. They 
were reported from Putnam County, Indiana, in the summer 
of 1891-92. They remained throughout a part of the sum- 
mer of 1892 at Lafayette, Indiana. They remained even later 
at Old Orchard, Mo., in 1892. 
These notes but serve to bring more clearly to mind the 
peculiar, erratic character of the bird of which we have 
known, to some degree, before. The notes would also seem to 
indicate that much of our lack of data is due to the scarcity 
of observers in years past. A few years ago the collection of 
data regarding almost any species of bird from Indiana, oF 
almost any other state, would have been impossible. It is not 
improbable, could we begin with the abundance of Crossbills 
at Cincinnati in 1868-9, with a number of intelligent ohserv- 
ers equal to that available now, we could have a collection of 
observations covering its whole range between the Ohio River 
and the lakes and perhaps including its movements for almost 
every year. These blank years do not necessarily signily 
that it was wanting in the territory studied, but that for some 
cone of a great many reasons, it was not observed. The erratic 
distribution of the species applies as well to its summer range 
as to that in winter. It seems very probable that the species 
breeds to some extent throughout the Ohio Valley. It is true 
that no specimens representing either the nest or eggs have 
