120 
General Notes. 
(Lanius ludovicianus ) occurring in New England lias been placed at my 
disposal by Mr. Charles F. Goodhue, of Webster, N. H., who has kindly 
forwarded me a specimen for examination which was taken near Concord, 
N. H., January 20, 1879. — Ruthven Deane. 
The White-rumped and Loggerhead Shrikes in Ohio. — On 
the 22d of August, 1878, I took a well-marked example of Collurio ludovi- 
cianus var. excubit or aides at Madison ville, which upon dissection proved to 
be a male “young of the year.” It had attained its full plumage, how- 
ever, the under parts being immaculate, and the dorsal surfaces showing 
no traces of the huffy suffusion and transverse vermiculation usually ob- 
servable in the young of this genus; the clear, pale bluish-ashy of its 
upper parts, with the conspicuously white rump and superciliary line, pro- 
claimed its relationship at a glance. Its capture here will be regarded 
with interest by ornithologists, this being the southeasternmost point at 
which it has been recorded ; and is of additional significance on account 
of the occurrence here of the typical C. ludovicianus , which is a regular 
though somewhat rare summer resident in this vicinity, where it has been 
found breeding * on three occasions at least. — Frank W. Langdon, 
Madisonville , Hamilton Co., 0. 
The Great Northern Shrike in New England. — I wish to cor- 
rect an important error into which Dr.’Coues has inadvertently fallen in 
his “Birds of the Colorado Valley,” where he says : “In narrating an 
instance of its nesting on a low spruce-tree in New Brunswick, within 
twelve miles of St. Stephen, Dr. Brewer is certainly mistaken in asserting 
that ‘ we know of a single recent instance in which this bird has bred 
within the limits of the United States.’” The error of Dr. Coues is*in his 
supposition that the nest in question was in New Brunswick. On the con- 
trary, it was in the State of Maine, some twelve miles west of the town of 
St. Stephen, and about the same distance from any part of New Bruns- 
wick. This error may have been occasioned by an erratum that occurs in 
a sentence that follows the one quoted. This sentence should read : “ He 
has since met with its nest within twelve miles of St. Stephen in New 
Brunswick.” In the work the last three words are out of their proper 
place. My positive statement that the nest had been found within the 
limits of the United States was no careless mistake, but the statement of a 
well-known fact of which I had full knowledge when I penned it. [f ] 
* See the writer’s “Observations on Cincinnati Birds,” Journal Cincinnati 
Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. I, 1878, p. 114. 
[f Dr. Brewer’s whole paragraph comes from a misinterpretation, doubtless, 
unintentional, of my remarks. Dr. Brewer’s mistake, which I criticised, was 
in saying that “ we know of a single recent instance,” etc., the fact being, that 
we know of many such instances, if the testimony of competent observers is to 
go for anything. See B. C. V., I, 561. — E. C.] 
