Catalogue of the Birds of Illinois. 
183 
136. S. cyanoceplialus (Wagler) Caban. Brewer’s Blackbird. An occa- 
sional straggler from the west. 
Genus Quiscalus, Yieillot. 
JX *137. Q. purpureus ceneus, Ridgw. Bronzed Grackle. Resident south- 
ward; summer sojourner northward. The common “ Blackbird.” 
Family CORVIDAE. — Crows and Jays. 
Genus Corvus, Linnaeus. 
*138. C. corax carnivorus (Bartr.) Ridgw. American Raven. Resident, 
but very local. 
/ *139. C. frugivorus, Bartr. Common Crow. Resident; abundant, and 
generally distributed.* 
Genus Pica, Cuvier. 
140. P. rustica hudsonica (Sabine) Baird. Black-billed American Magpie. 
Of very doubtful occurrence in Illinois, at least at present, but given by Mr. 
Kennicott as a rare winter visitant to the extreme northern counties. 
Genus Cyanocitta, Strickland. 
2-( *141. C. cristata (Linn.) Strickl. Blue Jay. Resident; abundant, and 
generally distributed. In most localities one of the most familiar of the native 
birds, quite in contrast to its habits in the eastern states. 
Family ALAUDFDgE. — Larks. 
Genus Eremophila, Boie. 
*142. E. alpestris (Forster) Boie. Horned Lark. Resident entire state, 
but chiefly the prairie districts. f 
*It is altogether likely that the Fish Crow ( C . ossifragus , Wilson), will eventually 
have to be added to the list of Illinois birds. I have several times heard, on the Wa- 
bash river, at Mt. Carmel, the notes of a Crow which were identical with those of this 
species, whose voice is exceedingly different from that of the common kind, being a 
sort of “cracked” croak, or barking sound; something like we would imagine a com- 
mon crow with a very bad cold to utter. The species should be sought for along the 
larger streams in the southern part of the state, since its habitat is strictly littoral 
and fluviatile, and at the same time essentially southern. 
+Mr. Nelson includes the pale form distinguished by the name of leucolcema, Coues, 
in his list (p. ilO). This, however, is an error, so far as the specimens upon which the 
statement was based are concerned, but one for which I am chiefly responsible. A 
series of specimens was submitted to me for examination, and certain examples, in 
very pale plumage, I pronounced to be the “var. leucolcema.” In this I was mis- 
taken, the individuals in question proving to be the true alpestris , in much faded 
summer plumage. Although it is frequently not easy to distinguish the adults of the 
two forms, there is never any difficulty with the young, that of leucolcema being 
many shades lighter in color, the difference being moreover absolutely constant. 
I was only made aware of my mistake by the subsequent inspection of young birds 
said to be the same form which I had previously identified as leucolcema ; and, neglect- 
ing to explain the case in time, am thus responsible in great measure for the 
statements made by Mr. Nelson in regard to these birds, as cited above. 
