46 
BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL 
fied that his opinions as to its occurrence were based wholly on hearsay 
and unreliable testimony, and subsequent claims, when tested, were inva- 
riably of the same vague, inconsistent, and contradictory character. Posi- 
tive proof, such as the preservation of the alleged species or reliable wit- 
nesses, was never forthcoming. The occurrence of this peculiarly semi- 
tropical and local species in New England, when totally unknown north 
of the Chesapeake, was in itself so improbable that in the absence of any 
proof I could only discredit such claims. In this opinion I am fully sus- 
tained by your correspondent’s strongest witness. Dr. Cones. 
The same is eminently true of Corvus ossifragus. Your correspondent 
can cite only opinions. Even Mr. Brewster’s record of its occurrence, 
though he is an expert as little likely to be mistaken as any one, does not 
even now, to my view, bring this species into the list of those whose occur- 
rence with us has been indisputably proven, though it may make its future 
capture more probable. 
In regard to H^gialitis ivilsonius, we have the opinion of Mr. Linsley, 
which rested upon no evidence ; of Dr. Cones, given inferentially and with 
- a ^‘perhaps” ; of Dr. Wood, on Long Island (!) ; of Mr. Allen ; and again 
of Dr. Cones, the latter again speaking qualifiedly (“ probably ”). What 
I have said of this* species still stands uncontroverted by any /ac^s, and 
the opinions cited are in full accordance with my own given in my list. 
Nettion crecca, as I state, “is a bird liable to occur in New England,” but 
the only instance cited was founded in error on hasty, and, as I satisfied 
myself at the time, incorrect conclusions. The specimen had been taken in 
North Carolina and not in Massachusetts. Sula fiber, from Mr. Linsley’s 
own account of the specimen, which was not preserved, proved to be an 
immature Sula hassana. Mr. Putnam wrote me that he could give me 
no authority for his reference. 
Your correspondent is skeptical in regard to j^giothns canescens, Myiodi- 
octes minutus, Anser gambeli, Bernicla hutchinsi, Lagopus albus. In regard 
to the last-named I feel somewhat doubtful myself. The first rests on the 
high authority of Mr. G. A. Boardman ; the second, waiving the specimen 
I took myself in 1836, and which was identified by Mr. Audubon, rests 
on the excellent authority of a good ornithologist. Dr. Charles Pickering, 
confirmed by no less authority than that of Mr. Nuttall himself. Anser 
gambeli, between 1836 and 1846, was much more common than it ap- 
parently is now, but even now there is no lack of evidence of its pres- 
ence, though it may have escaped your correspondent’s notice. A fine 
specimen in immature plumage has been recently taken in Gloucester, 
and is now in the collection of Mr. William Jeffries of Boston. In the 
winter of 1836-1837, Hutchins’s Goose was abundant in our market from 
this neighborhood, as was also the Pied Duck, the Harlequin, and others 
now rarely seen. Several specimens were procured by me, preserved in 
alcohol, and sent to London for Mr. Audubon’s anatomical investigations. 
