Inly, 1912 PRESENT STATUS OE THE COLORADO CHPXK-LIST OF BIRDS 
15,1 
at Coulter and Hot Springs (Cary) — and in the Znni iNfountains, New Mexico. 
It has also been taken in siimnier in the San Francisco Mountains, Arizona, and 
a s])ecimen now in the collection of the lliological Survey was taken at I'res 
Piedras, New Mexico, July 13, 1892, and undoubtedly represents a bird that 
had nested in the vicinity. Put all of these breeding birds, from Idaho to Ari- 
zona and New (Mexico, should he referred to the western form striatiilus, and 
atricapillus should therefore be dropped from the list of Colorado breeders and 
its place taken by striatiilus. The former remains, however, as a winter visitant 
to Colorado. 
Asio flammeus. Sclater withdraws this species from the breeding list, 
but it should be retained ; for a pair seen by A. Iv. I'isher at Sterling July 27, 
1892, must be considered as breeding birds. 
Strix varia. Not given by Sclater in his list of breeders, but if the species 
is to be admitted at all in the Colorado list it must be as a breeder, since eggs 
were secured at the same time with the original specimen. 
Dryobates villosus villosus. Sclater does not include this form in the list 
of lireeders ; but the specimens on which the form was introduced into Colorado 
were nesting when taken. This is also the breeding' form of the Arkansas \’al- 
lev as far west at least as Lamar, where a specimen was taken bv H. G. Smith 
June 20, 1904. 
Passerella iliaca schistacea. Not included in Sclater as a breeder because 
no ne.st has, been found in Colorado; but as almost all the records for the state 
are in June and July, it seems almost straining a point to exclude it from the 
breeding list. 
Pipilc aberti. Excluded by Sclater. Its claim to a place in the Colorado 
list re.sts on a nest and eggs. It would be better to drop the species entirely 
from the list. 
Nannus hiemalis. Excluded by Sclater, because there is no s])ecihG record 
of the finding of a nest. There seems to be rea.son for doubting that the July 
birds, seen by Gillette and Cooke, were nesting. 
Toxostoma bendirei. Should be withdrawn from the list of breeders, for 
the breeding records of Christie are undoubtedly erroneous. 
FROM FIELD AND STUDT 
Position of Mourning Dove Nestlings. —In an article liy f'. C. Willard entitled 
“A Week .\field in Southern Arizona," which appeared in The Condor for March-April, 
1912, there occurs tliis statement; ‘‘The young Mourning Doves always face in the same 
direction." This may lie true of this species in .Trizona, hut it docs not hold good in 
Iowa, as a few notes made in 1907 will show. 
The first mention of positions in nest, hearing date of June 18, refers to doves in 
a nest situated in an evergreen tree about three feet from the ground, favorably located 
for making drawings and photographs, and was \-isited for these purposes when the 
nestlings were about twelve days old, the hoy who found the nest, showing the way. 
When we found them, one young dove faced north, the other south. “When I returned 
to photograph them both faced south." 
Three other notes relate to nestlings in our yard that were visited daily. The older 
of these Mourning Doves was hatched June 17. 'I'he first note on this question hears 
date of June 23 : “The parent bird sat with its tail north-hy-west, and I expected to find 
the young facing southeast ; hut one was in that direction and the other in the opposite 
direction. It is the first time both of their heads were not together." Again, on June’ 
24: “One youngster faced one way and the other in the opposite direction." A note on 
July 5 mentions that they faced the same way. These are all the notes that were made 
on this snbiect : hut an impression remians that after June 24 they were more frequently 
found facing opposite directions. — Althea R. Shkkvan. 
I 
