The Smithsonian specimens are from Carlisle, Penn., obtained in April, May, and August; from Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mexico, etc. Mr. Lawrence enumerates this among the birds found near New York City. Mr. Dresser found it common near Matamoras in July and August. It was breeding there, though, owing to the lateness of the season, he was unable to procure any of its eggs. Dr. Coues speaks of it as generally distributed in Arizona, but nowhere very common. A single specimen was taken near Fort Whipple, August 10. Turnbull regarded it as a rare straggler to the southern counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, arriving there in the middle of May. Dr. Woodhouse found it common in the Indian Territory and Texas. Lieutenant Couch mentions seeing this bird first near Monterey, the male always preceding the female. He speaks of them as exceedingly tame. Mr. J. H. Clark states that this bird was not often seen, and, when observed, was generally solitary, preferring the dark ravines and the cañons on the mountain-sides. It is not mentioned by Sumichrast as a bird of Vera Cruz, but was found during the winter months at Oaxaca, Mexico, by Mr. Boucard. Mr. O. Salvin states (Ibis, III, p. 352) that he found this species, though not of very common occurrence, pretty generally distributed, in winter, throughout Vera Paz. He met with it on the Plains of Salamà, and all the collections from the warmer districts to the northward of Coban contained specimens. It was found by Mr. George H. White near Mexico. Wilson speaks of this bird as retired and solitary, and also as a scarce species, and as having but few notes, its most common one being a loud _chuck_. He was, however, aware that at times they have a few low sweet-toned notes. He mentions their being kept in Charleston in cages, but as seldom singing in confinement. He fed a caged bird of this species on Indian corn, which it easily broke with its powerful bill; also on hemp-seed, millet, and berries. He speaks of them as timid, watchful, silent, and active. Mr. Audubon was, apparently, somewhat at fault in regard to the peculiarities of this species. His accounts of the eggs of the _Pyranga æstiva_ are entirely inapplicable to that species, and, so far as I know, apply to no other bird than the Blue Grosbeak, to which they exactly correspond. He makes no mention and gives no description of the eggs of the latter. His statements as to the nest appear to be correct.