Auk, XIV, July, 1897, p, 3 xo, 
Spring Molt in Spinus pinus. — In a paper published in the Proceedings 
of the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 141, I stated 
that so far as I could judge from available material the Pine Finch had 
no spring molt. A series of specimens taken at West Chester, Chester 
Co., Pa., in May, 1897, by Dr. T. II. Montgomery shows, however, that 
quite an extensive renewal of the feathers occurs at this season. It of 
course does not extend to the remiges and rectrices. As m3' former state- 
ment was liable to be misleading, I take this opportunity to correct it. — 
Witmer Stone, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa. 
Vol. XVIII 
1901 
] 
General Notes. 
203 
Notes on the Moulting of Spinus pinus and of Hirundo erythrogaster. 
— In the January ‘ Auk,’ Mr. Stone has so pleasantly reviewed my paper 
on 1 The Plumages and Moults of the Passerine Birds of New York,’ that 
it is evident we are in complete accord as to the facts and conclusions 
which we have each reached working along independent lines. There 
are, however, two species, the Pine Finch and the Barn Swallow, about 
which there is yet a word to be said. Mr. Stone appears to be correct in 
claiming a prenuptial moult in the Pine Finch , but it is ordinarily so 
extremely limited that I considered it as the irregular renewal, found in 
spring in so many species, which scarcely deserves the name of a distinct 
moult. Two of Mr. Stone’s Pennsylvania birds taken in May show more 
evidence of growth of new feathers about the head and throat, and even 
of new tertiaries, than I would have suspected from the other mate- 
rial I have studied. The re-examination of nearly 150 specimens, taken 
every month in the year, shows that birds of April, May and June are 
exceedingly worn. Among seven April and eleven May specimens, I 
find so little evidence of the growth of a few new feathers, and only on 
the throat, that Mr. Stone’s specimens which I have examined are indeed 
a surprise to me, and suggest unusual precocity. As, however, this 
species is subject to a considerable amount of wear, it is probable that it 
belongs with those species having a very limited first prenuptial moult 
which is not repeated a second year, and the wear, quickly affecting the 
new feathers, obliterates evidences of moult. 
Vaa-J 
III, April., 1901, p* X.°3 , 
