92 
BULLETIN OF IHE NUTT ALL 
I might go on and take up and criticise, one by one, each of these 
supplemental opinions, but as they are only opinions unsupported by 
facts, I view them as valueless. Some I know to be incorrect. Vireo 
gilvus and Zencedura carolinensis^ for instance, to my certain knowl- 
edge, have been found very nearly, if not quite, throughout New Eng- 
land. Then, too, “ H. A. P.” and your humble servant do not appear 
to always attach the same significance to the same words, — “rare,” 
for instance. With all due deference to his opinions^ as expressed 
in all the instances where I have made use of this word, I must still 
adhere to my own, and am prepared to take issue with him squarely 
in every instance named by him where he challenges its use. Until 
he can produce the data for his sweeping declarations I am not 
prepared to admit the correctness of any of his unproven state- 
ments or inferences. I do not believe, for instance, that Ferissoglossa 
tigrina, Geothlypis Philadelphia^ or Contopus borealis are “ generally 
common” throughout Northern New England. Neither am I pre- 
pared to admit, without positive proof, that Helminthophaga cliry- 
soptera can be said to breed in any considerable numbers in South- 
ern New England, nor does it, so far as I know, in any part of the 
United States. The mere ipse dixit of a single observer, and scattered 
insulated instances, do not afford even inferential data. The same 
holds true of Coturniculus passermiis, though a much more common 
bird, but the portion of Southern New England in which it breeds in 
considerable numbers regularly must be small indeed. So far as my 
own observations go, and so far also as I have been able to obtain 
information from others, “ H. A. P.” is not warranted in his sweep- 
ing statement that Micropalama himantopus is a regular migrant 
along the whole New England coast. But if he is better posted, and 
can produce the evidence to establish his views on this long-contro- 
verted point, such data are too valuable and would be too inter- 
esting to be suppressed. But let us have facts, not imaginative 
opinions, and these not insulated, but in sufficient numbers. As for 
Anthus ludovicianus, I speak of that which I do know when I repeat 
that I have found it, sometimes in large flocks, in open country near 
the coast, in Massachusetts, in midwinter, notwithstanding the 
negative testimony of “ H. A. P.” to the contrary. 
But I will not occupy any further space by taking up, point by 
point, the various forms of difference of opinion between “ H. A. P.” 
and myself. I will only add, in conclusion, that I see nothing in 
his criticisms, unsupported as they are by facts, to induce me to 
