78 



Bird - Lore 



FALL MIGRATION, continued 



Kowak River, Alaska . . . . 



Great Bear Lake, Mack 



Columbia Falls, Mont. . . . 

 Aweme, Man. . . . . 



Northwestern Minnesota . . . . 



Lanesboro, Minn 



Onaga, Kansas 



Keokuk, Iowa 



Ottawa, Ont 



Gait, Ont 



Oberlin, Ohio 



Chicago, III 



Alberton, Prince Edward Island 



St. John, N. B 



Montreal, Canada 



Southwestern Maine 



Renovo, Pa 



Berwyn, Pa 



November 14 

 October 22 

 October 26 

 November 6 

 November 23 

 November 12 

 November 12 

 November 24 

 November 4 

 November 11 

 October 3 1 

 November 5 

 November 4 

 November 12 

 November 10 

 November 20 



September 

 September 

 November 

 November 

 November 

 Wintered 

 November 

 Wintered 

 November 

 December 

 November 

 November 

 November 

 Wintered 

 November 

 December 

 November 

 December 



7, iS9» 

 25, 1903 



20, 1892 



4, 19Q1 



5. 1895 

 [888-89 



27, 1904 

 [888-89 

 29, 1888 

 15, 1901 



28, 1896 



21, 1904 

 3. 1897 



[893-94 



8, 1887 

 8, 1904 



20, 1899 

 23, 1894 



'Oology a Science' 



To the Editor of Bird -Lore: 



The recent discussion of this subject in BiRD-LoRE and 'The Condor' 

 has been one of considerable interest, but in spite of the various views given 

 it still seems that the crux of the question has been passed unnoticed. 

 In the first place, it must be admitted that oology is not embryology and 

 that, therefore, it is more or less unreasonable to discard the former because 

 it has given no results to the latter branch of science. Oology, even at its 

 best, has nothing to do v\^ith the development or structure of the 

 embryo, except in so far as it afifects the removal of the same from the 

 shell. Therefore, oology, as oology, should not be tried on its merits as 

 embryology, though it is difficult to see how any thorough naturalist can be 

 unfamiliar with the great names cited in former letters on this subject. 



Mr. Lucas has mentioned several cases where external ovarian fea- 

 tures have yielded greater or lesser results in capable hands, and a few more 

 might be cited that have shown confirmatory evidence of taxonomical 

 relationships, but here is the point — are these few and isolated results 

 enough and sufficient to dignify the subject as a special 'ology'? Is there a 

 series of facts in nature, however commonplace they may be, that, with the 

 same amount of work as has been expended upon egg-shells, would 

 not have yielded equal if not greater results ? Do these meager results war- 

 rant us classing egg-shell study, as a whole, as scientific? 



On one point aU authorities seem agreed, that nest-hunting does afllord 



