Many ornithologists, even as long ago as the time of Wilson and Nuttall, have believed that the rows of small holes, such as we commonly see in the bark of our orchard trees, are drilled by the downy woodpecker. These little holes, about three-eighths of an inch across, circular when old, but oval when fresh, are arranged in fairly regular rows parallel to the ground, and sometimes in tiers, when they have the appearance of a waffle. In settled regions they are found oftenest in the trunks and the larger branches of trees belonging to the rose family--most commonly of all in apple trees. The holes may be within 3 feet of the ground or as high as 20 feet or more above it, depending on the height of the tree. Oftentimes they are very close together; I have counted as many as six of them in the space of an inch and a half. The question has arisen whether the downy woodpecker ever makes these holes. We know now, what the older ornithologists did not know, that it is a regular habit of the yellow-bellied sapsucker to drill such holes, but there are plenty of statements in the ornithological literature today ascribing the work to the downy woodpecker as well. Dr. Charles W. Townsend (1932) gives an able summary of the literature on this question and, after carefully weighing the evidence, comes “to the conclusion that these well known and characteristic circles of holes are made by true sapsuckers and not by downy or hairy woodpeckers.” He throws a good deal of doubt on some seemingly definite observations from correspondents quoted by Forbush in his “Birds of Massachusetts,” when he says that “many leave one in considerable uncertainty as to whether the correspondents actually saw the downy woodpecker making the rings of holes, or merely tapping in the same region, or drinking the sap, or eating cambium from holes whose origin was not ascertained. It may be that some of the correspondents were unable to distinguish the true species of woodpecker.” Dr. Townsend cites several observations, two of which are quoted below. If the first of these had not been correctly interpreted, and if the other had not been seen in its entirety, they might have led to error. He says: