74 
THE CONDOR 
VOL. VI 
twenty or more individuals. They are the house pets of all the inhabitants. They 
eat crumbs from the kitchen steps, alight on the window frames, and will even 
enter the houses if a window is left open. The children at many a lonely section 
house on the railroad beguile the long winter days with feedingthese pets. At Glen 
Alpine I had good opportunity to observe them, for there the watchman had a tray 
filled with crumbs, nailed to the window ledge. At this the chickadees would be 
feeding every hour of the day, sometimes five or six at a time. They were con- 
tinually uttering their “chick-a-dee, dee, dee.” A bit of salt pork hung up b}' a 
string furnished an especial relish. Some were clinging to it head downwards, 
most of the time. They were omnivorous eaters, but seemed to like best soaked 
cracker crumbs. To this feeding place at Glen Alpine they came from at least half 
a mile distant. I have watched them fly from tree to tree making directly for the 
kitchen window. In the woods the chickadees appear to feed upon insect life, but 
what I do not know. 
A /(a, Calif or 7 iia. 
Explanatory 
liv i,v.%tAX liia.niNG 
W HEN the Land Birds of the Pacific District was published I excluded con- 
siderable matter that was intended for it. This consisted of notes on the 
food of birds, so-called correlative phenomena, miscellaneous matter con- 
tributed by myself and Signal Service reports I had copied at San Diego, in the 
Sacrameeto Valle}^ and at the summit of the Central Pacific R. R. I stated on 
page 2 that the data on food was meager, and therefore unsatisfactory, and I might 
have added, somewhat contradictory. 
The so-called correlative phenomena contained .some very interesting items, 
but was used sparingly because it related distantly, if at all, to the coming of the 
birds. The Signal Service reports had apparently no closer connection with 
migration than the correlative phenomena. Possibly some other person might 
have considered the excluded matter as having more value than I attached to it. 
I have been asked why I cited Fort Yuma and Fort Mojave records. It w'as 
because I knew that old PYrt Yuma was on the west bank of the Colorado, b'ort 
Mojave was on the east bank but I knew that Dr. Cooper had collected on both 
sides of the river. I also knew that the early ornithologists were not careful to 
name the precise locality where they got their specimens. I had seen Ampelis 
gamilus in Plumus Count\% July, 1885. Another of Dr. Cooper’s Fort Mojave 
species, Toxostoma crissale, I had taken on the west side of the Colorado River, 
latitude about thirty degrees, in May of the same year. 
At several stations there was more than one observer, and this was responsi- 
ble for my iinusual method of giving credit. 
I placed the manuscript in Mr. Bryant’s hands, and expected him to attend to 
its publication. He did so partly, and during his absence from the Academy of 
Sciences I wms requested to visit San Francisco and finish reading the proofs. I 
discovered that in the effort to abbreviate, a few errors had crept into the volume, 
some of which I corrected and others I overlooked, while it was too late to correct a 
