[1]The Birds of Ohio, by William Leon Dawson, A. M., B. D., with Introduction and Analytical Keys by Lynds Jones, M. Sc. One and Two Volumes, pp. xlviii. + 671. Columbus, The Wheaton Publishing Company, 1903.
[2]Key to North American Birds, by Elliott Coues, A. M., M. D., Ph. D., Fifth Edition (entirely revised), in Two Volumes; pp. xli. + 1152. Boston, Dana Estes and Company, 1903.
[3]The Birds of North and Middle America, by Robert Ridgway, Curator, Division of Birds, U. S. National Museum, Bulletin of the U. S. N. M., No. 50; Pt. I., Fringillidae, pp. xxxi. + 715 and Pl. XX. (1901); Pt. II., Tanagridae, etc., pp. xx. + 834 and Pl. XXII. (1902); Pt. III., Motacillidae, etc., pp. xx. + 801 and Pl. XIX. (1904); Pt. IV., Turdidae, etc., pp. xxll. + 973 and Pl. XXXIV. (1907).
[4]“The Naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia,” by John Keast Lord. Two Vols. London. Published by Richard Bentley, 1866. Vol. II., p. 70.
[5]Rep. Pac. R. R. Survey, Vol. XII., Bk. II. [Senate, 1860].
[6]Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VI., p. 140.
[7]The Auk, Vol. III., 1886, p. 167.
[8]Life Histories of N. A. Birds, Vol. II., p. 394.
[9]Handbook Birds of the Western U. S., pp. 278-9.
[10]The Auk, Vol. XVII., Oct. 1900, p. 354.
[11]The Auk, Vol. IX., Jan. 1892, p. 45.
[12]Since writing the above specimens have been taken at Kirkland by Miss Jennie V. Getty (Dec. 1908).
[13]Rep. Nat’l Hist. Coll. in Alaska, pp. 174, 175.
[14]By “shading” here is not meant subspecific relationship, altho this does obtain as regarding both griseonucha and littoralis, but rather suggestive relationship, assumed divergence from a common stock.
[15]“Birds of Illinois,” Vol. I., p. 263.
[16]So called for decades, but now lost to us thru the latest caprice of nomenclature. Varium et mutabile semper A. O. U. Check-List.
[17]Until the season of 1908. See ante under “Migrations.”
[18]“(?) Bendire, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. XIX., 1877, 118 (Camp Harney, e. Oregon, breeding)” (Ridgway).
[19]Based upon that of Melospiza melodia from which it differs slightly in proportions but chiefly in grayer coloration. The measurements are those of Ridgway, Birds of N. & M. A., Vol. I., p. 358.
[20]Birds of North and Mid. Am., Vol. I., p. 391.
[21]Birds of North and Middle America, Vol. I., p. 401.
[22]Coues, “Birds of the Northwest” (Ed. 1874), p. 177.
[23]Lynds Jones in Dawson’s “The Birds of Ohio,” p. 94.
[24]Applied to P. erythromelas in “The Birds of Ohio,” p. 109, and exactly applicable here.
[25]Handbook of Birds of W. U. S., p. 419.
[26]Coues’ Key to N. A. Birds, Fourth Edition, is especially referred to. The matter has been corrected in the Fifth Edition.
[27]The Condor, Vol. VIII., March 1906, p. 41.
[28]“Narrative,” April 1839, p. 343.
[29]A Review of the Larks of the Genus Otocoris, Proc. U. S. Nat’l Mus., Vol. XXIV., pp. 801-884, 1902.
[30]Much clearer testimony is required on this point. Oberholser, op. cit., p. 839, cites a record for Colton in Whitman County, but I have never seen this form in Yakima County; and it would seem remarkable that a bird should forsake the mild climate of Tacoma to endure the more severe winters and less certain food supply of the East-side.
[31]A near view of this remarkable nest was forbidden by the breaking of a negative.
[32]Narrative of a Journey Across the Rocky Mountains to the Columbia River [etc.], by John K. Townsend (1839), p. 339. Townsend’s “Catalog of birds found in the territory of the Oregon,” which appeared in this work, pp. 331-336, enjoys the distinction of being the first faunal list of this northwestern region. It contains 208 titles but the naturalist included in it mention of many species encountered by him in his passage of the Rocky Mountains, and he does not, of course, distinguish between the regions lying north and south of the Columbia River. Of the total number recorded, therefore, Washington cannot possibly be entitled to above 168 species, and the list has little value in establishing the status of a bird as a resident of Washington.
The classic instance reported from Seattle in the columns of the Auk (Vol. V., ’88, p. 424) of a nest “made of straws, chips, paper, etc.,” proved to concern the handiwork of the Purple Martin (Progne subis), but the mistake was a not unnatural one in view of the then rarity of the Martin. 
