A Series of Eggs of the Chuck-will’s- 
widow. 
The eggs of the Chuck- will’ s-widow (Antros- 
tonus c.arolinensis) are always two, and are either 
deposited on the bare ground, or on a few dead 
leaves in a wood. In shape they are elliptical 
oval, and it is seldom that they are smaller at 
one end than at the other. Their ground 
color is very constant, being a pale pinkish- 
J 
crj 
buff, and seldom varies in tint, but their mark- 
1 wij 
• 
ings show great variation, and the difference 
\ 
in the sizes of different sets of eggs exhibit great 
the 
variation. It should bo remarked, however, 
the 
that the two eggs in each particular set show but 
tin 
little difference in size. 
the 
Set I. April 8, 1886, Comal county, Texas. 
I h 
Two eggs, pale pinkish-buff marbled with lilac- 
tin 
gray and fawn color: 1.28 x. 95; 1.81 x. 94. 
a 1 
The smallest sized set in the series. 
j 
Set II. May 30, 1887. La Fayette County, 
cal 
Mississippi. Two eggs, very pale pinkish-buff, 
spotted with lavender-gray: 1.38 x. 94; 1.39 
the 
x.91. 
or 
Set III. May 8, 1888, Chatham County, 
Georgia. Two eggs, very pale pinkish-buff, 
bu 
lightly spotted with lavender-gray, and few 
.specks of burnt umber: 1.43 x.99; 1.39 x.99. 
“s 
soil 
Set IY. May 14, 1887. La Fayette County, 
of 
Mississippi. Two eggs, pinkish-buff, heavily 
marbled and spotted with lilac-gray and tawny- 
of 
“8 
olive: 1.39 x. 1.02; 1.38x1.01. The above de- 
the 
scribes these eggs as they appear now, but 
yai 
they were very different when I first received 
to 
them. My collector packed them up the day 
ha 
after he took them, and sent them to me at 
fri 
once, so that they reached me about three 
# 
days after they were collected. The colors 
ing 
were then much brighter than they now are, 
egg 
and what is now tawny-olive color was then 
tin 
almost burnt umber, but in spite of being 
aln 
kept away from the light they have steadily 
mo 
faded. 
Ho 
Set V. June 8, 1885, Edgecomb County, 
North Carolina. Two eggs, pale pinkisli-buff, 
ve< 
marbled with lilac-gray, and spotted with 
tile 
drab: 1.51 xl.01; 1.54x1.04. The largest sized 
tov 
set in the series, and very large eggs for this 
clic 
species. 
Set VI. May 9, 1885, St. John’s County, 
Florida. Two eggs, light pinkish-buff, spot- 
ted and marbled with lilac-gray, and one egg 
has also a few small spots of burnt umber: 
1.39 x.98; 1.39x1.02. 
Set VII. May 21, 1886, Beaufort County, 
South Carolina. Two eggs, pinkish-buff, 
spotted and marbled with lilac-gray and burnt 
umber. There are also some spots of drab. 
Heavily marked for this species: 1.35x1.02; 
1.37 x 1.02. 
Set VIII. June 9, 1887, Beaufort County, 
South Carolina. Two eggs, pinkish-buff, mar- 
bled and spotted with lilac-gray and bistre. 
wo 
• 
There are also heavy blotches of mouse-gray. 
The markings on this set are the heaviest of 
any in the series, and they are the hand- 
somest eggs: 1.44x1.04; 1.34x1.01. 
Set IX. May 4, 1885, St.John’s County, South 
Carolina. Two eggs, pinkish-buff, marbled 
and spotted with lilac-gray, mouse-gray, and 
bistre. The spots of the latter color are all 
grouped around one end on each egg, where 
they form indistinct wreaths. This is an un- 
usual style of marking for this species: 1.43 
x 1.02; 1.44x1.02. J. P. N. 
o &0. XIV. Aug'. 1889 p .116 
