192 
General Notes. 
in a distinct paragraph, and each paragraph beginning with the name of 
the species in Italics. The rule given by the author demonstrates that all 
these are by him considered “ New England birds.” Among those thus 
given are Saxicola oenanthe, 0 poro mis 'formas a , Seiurus ludocicianus, Coccus 
ossifcagus , and several others, all of which, at that time, were without any 
evidence of a New England existence. Several were so admitted by the 
writer in giving them, and some, to this day, have no record in favor of 
their being of New England. Yet these stand in the list, paragraph, 
Italics, and all, indistinguishable from Turdus migratorius or ISpizella 
socialis as to their right to be there. 
On page G4 the impartial reader will find an “ Addenda,” giving three 
more species, all recorded in precisely the same manner with the preceding 
three hundred and thirty-two, — that is, in separate paragraphs, commen- 
cing with their names in Italics , — two of them claimed as actually taken, 
the third given as found both on our north and south, and stragglers in 
New England are anticipated, and all three apparently intended to be in- 
cluded in the list. Certainly they are not distinguishable from the others, 
and Hesperiphona is, to all appearance, as much included in the list as 
Coccus ossifragus, or any of the others that are admitted to be not actually 
known to have been taken within its limits. 
Now, turning to my list of the birds of New England, page 18, it will be 
seen that I simply refer to the fact that the bird is thus given, and on 
hypothetical grounds, the only apparent reason lor thus giving it being that 
its occurrence was regarded as probable, and that I, so far from discred- 
iting, fully admitted this probability, strengthening the hypothesis by 
mentioning a new instance of its ascertained occurrence near Vermont. 
The impartial reader can but find that my statement, instead of being- 
false, was to all appearance fully justified ; that a “ claim ” was plainly 
implied by the writer’s own test as to his own meaning and intent, — not 
as ascertained, like Strix pratincola , but as hypothetical, like Siucus ludo- 
vicianus ; and that not only in the particular paragraph, but throughout 
my list, no “ side-thrust” is given or intended for any one whatever, — in 
a word, that the accusation is purely imaginative, and that all I stated 
wa« given in entire good faith. 
Whether I deserve to have it said of me that I “ have become notably 
over fond of giving side-tlirusts to any one who may chance, to differ,” or 
whether such an unamiable peculiarity is more typical of some one else, 
would be a question quite out of place in what I trust its publishers design 
to be a journal devoted to pure ornithological science, and I am the last 
person Avho would seek to misuse its pages by mere personalities. — 
Thomas M. Brewer. 
[Though we reluctantly open the pages of the Bulletin to mere per- 
sonalities, we here give Dr. Brewer a chance to be heard. We are in- 
7 O 
formed that the person referred to has no reply to make. — Eds.] 
