ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. 39 
think it extremely doubtful that Wilson ever saw a specimen of 
S. wilsoni. 
Audubon’s account of the sexes of this bird is quite erroneous. 
Concerning a pair taken near Great Egg Harbor, in June, 1829, he 
states that, on examining the birds when we returned, I saw that 
the female had been sitting ” ; * and on the opposite page, I ob- 
served scarcely any difference in the coloring of the sexes, the 
female being merely larger than the male ” ; and he again states : 
The female, which is somewhat larger, is in color precisely similar 
to the male.” The few specimens seen by Audubon during the 
breeding-season were apparently all females, and, taking it for 
granted that the males were equally bright, he so stated. In his 
plate of this species he figures a female ” young of the year and 
an adult “ male,” which is, in reality, a female in breeding plumage. 
Audubon’s statement regarding the likeness of the sexes in the 
breeding plumage has been accepted as true by subsequent authors, 
even when they have had the opportunity to settle the matter for 
themselves in the field. 
N uttall adds considerable to the known range of the species, but 
makes his statements curiously conflicting, as the following quota- 
tions show : Taking the interior of the continent for its abode, it 
is seen not uncommon on the borders of lakes, in the vicinity of the 
City of Mexico. In these situations, choosing the shelter of some 
grassy tuft, it forms an artless nest, in which it deposits two or 
three pyriform eggs, between yellowish-gray and cream-color, inter- 
spersed with small roundish spots and a few larger blotches of um- 
ber-brown somewhat crowded towards the obtuse end.” He also 
states that “ it is unknown in summer beyond the 65th parallel, 
passing the period of reproduction on the plains of the Saskatche- 
wan, being also a stranger to the coasts of Hudson’s Bay ” ; and 
again, that in the United States it can only he considered as a stray- 
gler:^ t 
Dr. Coues, in his Birds of the Northwest,” arranges the synon- 
ymy of the species in a very satisfactory manner, but makes essen- 
tially the same statement as Audubon regarding the sexual plum- 
ages, and adds nothing of importance to the life-history of the 
species. To Mr. A. L. KumlienJ is due the credit of being the 
* Birds of Amer., Vol. V, pp. 229, 230, pi. 341. 
+ Man. Orn., Yol. II, pp. 245, 246. 
X Field and Forest, July, 1876. 
