188 THE CONDOR Vol. XXIII 
me and showed no fear, and placed it on a favorable perch near the ground 
in camp, where I again waited a long time for the old birds to come. Although 
they did not seem concerned because I had their offspring, they nevertheless 
were cautious about venturing too near. Just once the female did come out 
into the open where the youngster was, and I snapped my kodak at the two 
side by side on the branch. This picture, like all my others, was excellent, 
in itself and as it existed in nature irrespective of my attempt to take it. 
There were several children in our party and they all wanted to take 
turns ‘‘having’’ the young bird. And so for two days it was passed from hand 
to hand, and was made to perch, peeping plaintively, on wrists and arms and 
shoulders and hats. Even the older members of the party had to have their 
turns. One member, a better photographer than I, who also, however, had 
only a kodak, actually took pictures (that ‘‘ecame out’’ afterwards!) of the 
bird as it perched on various peoples’ hands, heads, ete. During all this hand- 
ling the little bird remained utterly fearless. 
On July 17 it had disappeared. After this date the parent birds were no 
longer in evidence round camp, our only intimation of their existence being 
very occasional call notes sounding from well outside the limits of camp. On 
July 23 I sawed down the empty nest. 
Whatever information of interest concerning the California Pine Gros- 
beak I may have collected during my few days of observation ought to make 
itself known to the reader as I compare my own experiences with those of 
some other observers or collectors, especially with the facts recorded by Milton 
S. Ray (Conpor, xiv, 1912, pp. 157-187). 
In regard to date of breeding, Ray quotes W. W. Price (p. 159) as follows: 
‘“They breed late, as attested by two nestlings brought to me July 29 . . .’’, 
The first nest that Ray found contained two eggs on June 17, and the second 
contained three eggs on June 18 (pp. 180 and 182). The Misses Alexander 
and Kellogg, collecting at Independence Lake, Nevada County, took six full- 
grown and nearly full-grown young (and four moulting adults) on August 9 
and 10 (nine of these in 1910, and one the previous year). My nest, as already 
stated, contained three young nearly ready to fly on July 12. 
As to elevation, Price (as quoted by Ray, p. 158) stated that the bird ‘‘is 
strictly an alpine species; I have never seen it below 7000 feet and I have 
taken it near the timber-line. It is peculiar to the belt of tamarack pine 
(Pinus murrayana), and the beautiful red alpine fir (Abies magnifica), and 
most of the specimens were taken in groves of this latter tree.’’ The two 
nestlings mentioned by Price (p. 159) were found ‘‘at about 9000 feet eleva- 
tion.’”’ Chester Barlow (as quoted by Ray, p. 161) said that he found Pine 
Grosbeaks among red firs, and that the bird is ‘‘seemingly a species of irreg- 
ular distribution, not occurring below 6,000 or 7,000 feet.’? Ray found his 
first Grosbeak nest at 8500 feet well up toward ‘‘the limit of the timber which 
is at about 9250 feet elevation’’ and well into the snow belt at the season when 
found (pp. 177-178). His second nest was also among snow (p. 182) between - 
7000 and 7600 feet (see table, p. 187), and, I gather (p. 182), among firs and 
hemlocks. The birds taken by the Misses Alexander and Kellogg, already re- 
ferred to and comprising in all six full-grown young and four adults (now nos. 
10456 and 17113-17121 in the collection of the University of California Museum 
of Vertebrate Zoology) were collected at 7000 feet. J. Grinnell (pp. 106-107 
of his “Distributional List’’) says, ‘‘The lowest elevation in the state at which 
