ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. ' 
45 
To my mind it is simply an absurdity to speak of a species as resident 
when not one individual of the entire species resides in any part of New 
England more than a fraction of the year. The word “ race ” is still a 
good English word, the meaning of which is so obvious that there is no 
occasion for misunderstanding it. According to Worcester it is “a series 
of descendants from one stock.” In this sense, and in this only, our Sum- 
mer and our Winter Kobins are of different races, though specifically the 
same. 
Corvus americanus, considered as a bird of all New England, is almost 
exclusively a summer resident. The few that winter are the exception, 
not the rule ; are restricted to a very small part of New England ; and are 
probably merely winter visitants from beyond our borders, and therefore 
not residents. What your correspondent quotes from my language in ref- 
erence to Picus villosus had reference to all the United States, and not ex- 
clusively to New England, though in a more restricted sense it is also 
applicable. I cheerfully admit that in this case it would have been 
more correct, on my part, to have given it qualified as partially a resident. 
It is not safe to assume, because a limited number of individuals of the 
other four species named are occasionally taken here in the winter, that 
they are necessarily resident. Without attempting to generalize, on data 
to my mind insufficient, I confined myself to that feature in their New 
England life in regard to which there would not be two opinions, leaving 
in abeyance all that admits of controversy. These birds are probably 
only winter visitants, and in no proper sense resident, or only very ex- 
ceptionally resident. 
Your correspondent takes up nearly a third of his second article with 
various opinions as to the occurrence in New England of the five species 
that formed the subject of his interrogation in his first article. But when 
I ask for bread he gives me only a stone. I ask for facts, and he gives me 
only opinions. He does not cite a single reference that I had not already 
fully considered. In one instance, while he goes back several years to cite 
opinions then expressed, but long since given up, he omits to quote the 
views now entertained by the same party, and in entire variance with 
what he does cite. In reference to Quiscalus major, he quotes Dr. Coues’s 
opinion given in 1868. Twice since then Dr. Coues has publicly given 
his opinion against the occurrence of this species north of the Carolinas ; 
first, in his admirable biography (Ibis, IV. 1870) of this bird, where he 
speaks of it as restricted to a narrow belt along the coast of the ocean 
and gulf from North Carolina to Mexico, and as rarely ever occurring 
north of the Carolinas”; secondly, in a work with which, judging from 
his quotations, your correspondent seems to be sufficiently familiar (Birds 
of the Northwest, p. 204), where he speaks of it as “not authentic in New 
England.” Why rake up an opinion given nine years ago and long since 
disclaimed ? Why omit his real opinion now ? Dr. Linsley was a cor- 
respondent of mine, and from his own account of this species I was satis* 
