Jan., 1902. I 
THE CONDOR 
17 
The composition is externally of twia:s, 
rootlets, moss and coarse grass, while 
the lining generally consists of fine root- 
lets. Occasionally, however, a nest is 
found thickly lined with horse and cow- 
hair. 
The number of eggs in a complete set 
varies from three to five, the latter 
number being very rare, while three is 
nearly as often found as four. In color 
the eggs have a bluish-green ground, 
rather sparsely spotted and dotted with 
colors varying from lavender to green- 
ish brown and almost black. A few 
specimens rather closely resemble some 
eggs of erythromelas, but the vast major- 
ity have a much deeper blue ground 
color and the markings have a less red- 
dish tinge. The markings generally 
tend to the formation of a ring around 
the larger end, but the eggs are always 
more or less marked over their entire 
surface. 
The variation in size is considerable, 
the largest in our collecting measuring 
.96X.67 inches, while the smallest is .86x- 
.67 inches. The average of twelve eggs 
taken at random shows a measurement 
of .925X.654 inches. Of course none of 
the eggs mentioned are in any way ab- 
normal. These birds are .seldom very 
solicitous about their nest and eggs. 
The female sits closely until forced to 
leave the nest, then flies to a short dis- 
ance and soon brings the male by her 
chipping and soft purring notes. Both 
then come back and watch the intruder 
at a short distance, with but little dis- 
play of anxiety. 
® ® ® 
Eastern Limit of Lawrence Goldfinch, 
In his ‘Birds of North and Middle 
America,’ Dr. Ridgway gives the east- 
ern limit of the range of Lawrence 
goldfinch {Astragali )ius laivrencel) as 
Fort Whipple and Pinal County, Ari- 
zona. I have two specimens ( <5 and ? ) 
that I shot January 20, 1876 near Fort 
Bayard, Grant County, New Mexico, 
about five miles east of the continental 
divide. F. Stephens. 
San Diego, Cal. 
Correction of Errors in Identification. 
I have been responsible for the fol- 
lowing erroneous records; 
(1) Tringa bairdi Grinneee, Auk 
XV, April 1898, 126. The specimen re- 
ferred to, taken at Sitka, later proved 
to be an immature spotted sandpiper 
{Act ills macularia) 
(2) Tardus aonalaschkce aiiduboni 
Grinnell, Bds. Pac. Slope Los Ang. 
Co., March 1898, 51. The specimen 
proves to be Hylocichla a. aonalaschka;, 
and not either H. a. auduboni or H. a. 
sequoiensis. 
(3) Otocoris alpestris leucolania B.\r- 
LOW, Condor III, Nov. 1901, 167. i 
was to blame for this naming. The 
specimens were since compared by 
W. K. Fisher at Washington, and pro- 
nounced to be Otocoris alpestris merrilli. 
These are all the mistakes in identifi- 
cation that I am so far aware of having 
made in any published writings. If 
others come to light, I propose to an- 
nounce them at once, so as to avoid 
further danger of such erroneous re- 
cords being quoted. 
I would urge that other writers do 
the same. For mistakes are bound to 
be made at some time or another, and 
uncorrected errors of this kind have 
caused much trouble in the past. The 
sooner they are made right, the better. 
In the study of distribution and its 
modifying influences, a few mistaken 
records may cause confusion, and per- 
haps prevent correct deductions. 
I do not include here changes in 
names, due to shifting nomenclature, or 
to separation of newly-recognized geo- 
graphical forms. For the compiler will 
readily recognize the form meant usu- 
ally by the locality. But out and out 
blunders like the above, where the 
spotted sandpiper was recorded as 
bairdi, could not be judged as such, un- 
less admitted by the author. Such 
blunders we know to have been often 
made in breeding records; for instance, 
the “black swift” nesting at Seattle, 
and the “evening grosbeak” nesting in 
Yolo County. 
It should be the duty of those who 
know of such errors to point them out 
as such, as soon as discovered. 
Joseph Grinnell. 
