Nov., 1921 NESTING PINE GROSBEAKS 189 
the species has been found at any season is Cisco Butte, 6500 feet, Placer Coun- 
ty, October 6, 1913 (Mus. Vert. Zool.).’’ In comparison with all of this, my 
birds were found at 6300 feet well below the lowest snow patches among lodge- 
pole pines and silver firs and not far above the highest sugar pines. | 
The ten birds collected at Independence Lake, Nevada County, constituted 
the northernmost record of range for this species till my own birds were re- 
vorded from the locality already herein referred to in Plumas County. 
Various field observers have remarked the Pine Grosbeak’s tameness. 
Price (as quoted by Ray, p. 159) observed that this bird, when visiting sait 
licks, ‘‘was at all times exceedingly fearless and unsuspicious.’’ Ray found 
his nesting birds so tame that they had to be “‘urged’’ off the nest (pp. 180 
and 182). In getting pictures of one of the nests (p. 182) ‘‘it was necessary in 
all to flush the bird forty-one times. No photographer could wish for a mcre 
willing subject, for she promptly returned: on each occasion. The bird was 
utterly fearless, coming at times very close to us and seeming rather puzzicd 
than alarmed or angered by our aggressive operations.’’ I did not find my 
nesting birds so tame as all this. Though they never seemed much excited 
or perturbed, they nevertheless at all times remained prudently at a distance 
from me when I approached or stayed near the nest or the nestlings. 
Price is quoted by Ray (p, 160) in regard to the food of the Pine Gros- 
beak. ‘‘The crop and stomach of an adult contained the soft leaf ends of 
Pinus murrayana and Abies magnifica, besides seeds and portions of various 
insects.’’ I observed my birds nipping off tender buds of fir, and doubtless it 
was this food, with an admixture perhaps of other material, that I saw them 
feeding to their young, by regurgitation. 
My Pine Grosbeak nest (now no. 1831, Mus. Vert. Zool.) is in a general 
way like the nests described by Ray (pp. 184-185). It is an outside consiruc- 
tion of twigs, lined with small erinkly roots. The outside measurements are 
§ inches across by 314 deep; the inside, 314 diameter by 134 deep. The nest 
was placed on a horizontal forked branch about 3 inches from the main trunk 
(at this height 1%g inches in diameter), and supported laterally by branches 
growing on a level with the rim. It was not attached to its support, but was 
fairly well crammed between the supporting branches and was reasonably firm. 
The eggs could have been seen through the bottom. It was, as already stated, 
20 feet up in a lodge-pole pine: this in comparison to the three heights men- 
tioned by Ray; namely, ‘‘on the lower branches of a fir’’ (p. 159), ‘‘sixteen 
feet up’’ in a fir (p. 178), and ‘‘35 feet up, eight feet from the trunk of”’ a 
hemlock (p. 184). 
Finally, as to the utterances of the California Pine Grosbeak. The ‘“necu- 
liar melodious twittering’’ mentioned by Ray (pp. 178 and 183) I do not re- 
member having heard. 
The call note I remember well and made records of it on the spot. It most 
decidedly reminded me of the Western Tanager’s note, which I would never 
think of spelling ‘‘churtig’’ as Ray does (p. 183), but which has at all times 
sounded to me so nearly like ‘‘pretty’’ that it seems strange that anybody 
could hear it much differently. The Pine Grosbeak’s call so closely resembles 
this tanager note, in my estimation, that one not knowing otherwise might well 
conclude that it indicated a family relationship. The Grosbeak’s eall has still 
another non-family or ‘‘accidental’’ counterpart in the call of the California 
Thrasher—the brisk ‘‘qui-lit’’ so well known to most observers. The Gros- 
