Broad- 
( Buteo 
Accompanied 
rington and R. ( 
April 14 for a w: 
be a new bird in 
off in tliat direct 
to the thicket w 
piece of hard art 
looked about to 
of the common 
nus), in progrt 
nearly reached t 
nest in a heml< 
told my compa: 
I 
it 
B 
h 
w 
t( 
as 
fc 
hi 
tii 
st 
ai 
O 
h 
P 
H 
t> 
d 
p 
h-* 
CO 
0) 
'O 
pi 
hi 
d. 
al 
ol 
li 
c< 
vi 
lo 
gJ 
cc 
li] 
dirty yellowish-white, covered more or less 
thickly in the different specimens with blotches 
of reddish-brown.” In size and appearance, 
judging from the above description, these were 
very similar to some eggs of Buteo lineatus , and 
they are open to the suspicion of having be- 
longed to that species, as Mr. Samuels does not 
say how they were identified. The egg that is 
figured in Samuels’ book, (Plate I, figure 5,) as 
belonging to Buteo pennsylvauicus, only meas- 
ures 1.86x1.51 inches. 
The nest found by Mr. Samuels is referred to 
by Dr. Coues (in his Birds of the Northwest} and 
the measurements given by Samuels are the 
only ones mentioned by Dr. Coues. In his 
Key , however, Dr. Coues gives the measure- 
ments as “eggs 3-5, 2.00x1.60, heavily marked.” 
Dr. Wheaton (in his Report on the Birds of 
Ohio ) evidently followed Samuels’ measure- 
ments, for he states that “the complement of 
eggs is four, and they vary in size from 2.15 
by 2.00 to 1.72 by 1.70.” 
Langille (in Our Birds in their Haunts ) says 
that the eggs are “three or four, some 2.10 
x 1.05.” 
Davie: ( An Kgg Check List, first edition:) 
“three or four; 2.09x1.61.” In the second edi- 
tion of his work he describes them as “grayish 
or dirty white, more or less blotched with light 
umber, reddish, yellowish and purplish-brown, 
with a dull shade approaching black; three to 
five are laid, measuring from 2.00 to 2.15 long, 
by 1.70 to 1.72 broad.” 
Now having examined the authorities let us 
see what results a series of ten sets before the 
writer give : 
Set I. Blue Mountains, Northampton County, 
Penn., May 18, 1885. Three eggs, fresh. No. 
1 : 1.76x1.50. Dull white, blotched all over 
with faint lilac, and over these a few brown 
specks. Almost as blunt at one end as 
the other. A very peculiar egg for this 
species. No. 2: 1.74x1.52. Dull white, faintly 
marked with pale lilac, with a very few brown 
specks. Almost equally rounded at both ends. 
No. 3: 1.88x150. Dull white, with hardly any 
lilac markings. Has a few brown specks, but 
they are more distinct than in the other eggs of 
this set. This specimen is quite pointed for 
Buteo pe nnsylvanieus. 
Set II. Framingham, Mass., May 25, 1884. 
Three eggs, fresh. No. 1: 1.95x1.52. Dirty- 
white, thickly blotched with pale lilac. Has 
a few brown specks and one distinct blotch 
of the same color. No. 2: 1.91x1.54. Dirty 
white, thickly covered with small blotches of 
faint lilac. Has one or two small brown spots. 
Quite pointed. No. 3: 1.87x1.53. Yellowish- 
white, thickly covered with very small, faint 
yellowish-brown specks and spots. — 
Set III. Pelican River, Becker County, Minn., 
May 19, 1886. Three eggs, incubation begun. 
No. 1: 1.90x1.54. Light yellowish- white, beau- 
tifully blotched diagonally across the whole 
egg with spots of faint purplish-brown. At 
the smaller end they are larger and thicker. 
No. 2: 1.90x1.51. Light yellowish-white, 
'faintly marked with small and faint specks 
of purplish-brown, closer together at the 
smaller end of the egg. One or two blotches 
of the same color. No. 3: 1.95x1.52. White, 
beautifully marked with spots and blotches of 
bright redish-brown, tending to become larger 
and more numerous at the smaller end. There 
are no lilac markings on this egg. 
Set IY. Floyd Lake, Minn., May 20, 1886. 
Three eggs, incubation begun. No. 1 : 1.93x 
1.54. Yellowish-white, very heavily marked 
with spots and blotches of dark brownish- 
red. In one or two places the markings are 
so close that they almost obscure the ground 
color. One blotch is much darker than the 
others, and they are closer together near the 
larger end. A remarkably handsome egg. 
No. 2: 1.92x1.57. Yellowish-white, thickly 
marked with lilac splashes and spots. Over 
these are a few reddish-brown specks. No. 3: 
1.90x1.55. White, quite heavily spotted and 
speckled with faint lilac, becoming confluent 
at the smaller end. Over these are a few 
brown specks. 
Set V. Floyd Lake, Minn. May 24, 1886. 
Three eggs, incubation far advanced. No. 1 : 
1.95x1.51. Very pointed for this species. 
White, heavily and most beautifully marked 
with bright chestnut-brown blotches, heavi- 
est near the smaller end, where they form an 
indistinct circle. A beautiful egg, the hand- 
somest in the series. No. 2: 1.98x1.51. White, 
very heavily marked at the smaller end with 
bright chestnut-brown. On one side the spots 
extend to the centre of the egg, but most of 
the surface (except the smaller end) is un- 
spotted. A strikingly handsome egg. No. 3 : 
1.91x1.50. White, almost unmarked. Has a 
few straggling line-like markings at the smaller 
end. A great contrast to Nos. 1 and 2 in this 
set. 
Set YI. Monroe County, Penn., June 6, 1885. 
Two eggs, fresh. No. 1 : 1.91x1.55. Dirty white, 
heavily marked with dark reddish-brown spots 
and blotches, thickest at the larger end. No. 
2: 1.85x1.55. Dull white, thickly covered over 
Jan. 1887.] AND OO 
nearly the whole surface with lilac blotches and 
spots, closer together at the larger end. 
Set VII. Lafayette County, Miss., May 18, 
1886. Two eggs, incubation far advanced. No. 
1: 1.90x1.46. Yellowish- white, thickly spotted 
and blotched with bright chestnut-brown all 
over the egg. A beautiful specimen. No. 2: 
1.90x1.43. Dirty white, smeared all over more 
or less thickly with faint lilac. Over this a few 
brown specks. 
Set VIII. Lafayette County, Miss., April 9, 
1886. Two eggs, fresh. No. 1: 1.98x1.54. 
White, beautifully blotched with bright chest- 
nut-red. The blotches are thickest at the small- 
er end, where they become confluent. A very 
handsome egg. No. 2 : 2.01x1.62. Dull white, 
thickly speckled and blotched with lilac and 
light redish-brown, closer at the smaller end. 
Set IX. Lafayette County, Miss., May 15, 
1886. Two eggs, incubation far advanced. 
No. 1: 1.91x1.49. White, very heavily blotch- 
ed with dark chestnut-brown. A beautiful 
egg. No. 2: 1.85x1.46. White, almost wholly 
obscured with faint lilac patches, thickest at 
the smaller end. Over this, at the smaller end 
are a very few spots of dark chestnut-brown. 
One of these measures .00x.52 and is very 
striking. 
Set X. Northampton County, Penn., May- 
17, 1884. Two eggs. No.l : 2.06x1.54. Dull 
white, thickly covered with lilac specks and 
blotches. No. 2: 1.99x1.53. White, thickly 
spotted and blotched with bright reddish 
brown. At the smaller end the blotches be- 
come confluent. A beautiful egg. 
Does not this series indicate that the size of 
the eggs of this species generally given by 
writers is larger than authentic specimens 
measure? 
Q.& O. XII, Jaq.^887. p. ? - //. 
