9fi 



THE OSPREY. 



ing the values supposed to separate or unite 

 magna and neglecta must be our excuse for quot- 

 ing' the following' interesting - extract from Mr. 

 Chapman's paper. 



"If the assumption of the origin of both birds 

 from a common ancestor be accepted and if 

 their geographical intergradation at the south- 

 ern limits of the range of neglecta be establish- 

 ed, we are then in a position to explain their 

 apparent association as species in the more 

 northern parts of their range, on the ground 

 that while their ranges originally diverged like 

 forks of a Y, the ends have finally come together, 

 not as geographical intergrades. but as two 

 forms, both of which have occupied the region 

 where they are found associated at so recent a 

 date that neither shows the effect of the climatic 

 conditions under which it lives, but exhibits the 

 characters earlier acquired. 



"In the Mississippi Valley, therefore, we have 

 the apparent anomaly of two geographical races 

 or subspecies of the same species breeding at 

 the same place, and occasionally associated with 

 them, are certain intermediate specimens show- 

 ing in varying degrees the characters of both 

 extremes. 



"Since it is out of the question to suppose that 

 the same environment could produce three 

 phases of the same species at the same place, 

 that is, neglecta, magna, and intermediates be- 

 tween the two. we can only suppose that such 

 connecting specimens are not geographical in- 

 tergrades but the results of a union between 

 neglecta and magna. It fact, loosely speaking, 

 these connecting specimens would be termed 

 hybrids, but, accepting as a definition of this 

 word 'the offspring of animals of different 

 species,' it is evident that in a strict sense it 

 cannot be applied to these intermediates, which 

 are the progeny of parents not specifically dis- 

 tinct." 



Probably few ornithologist who are familiar 

 with the localities where both these birds breed 

 together will accept Mr. Chapman's concluding 

 sentence in the above extract. 



Unfortunately there is a great habit among 

 systematic ornithologists to work upon the idea 

 that the colors of birds are the results of distinct 

 environmental climatological conditions instead 

 of being the result of climatological food condi- 

 tions plus other factors of less importance. 



A number of contrasting photographic repro- 

 ductions of skins and feathers of neglecta and 

 magna accompany Mr. Chapman's paper. 



To sum up, Mr. Chapman's evidence concern- 

 ing intermediates is equally effective for the 

 theory of hybridity especially if we give due 

 weight to the specialization of the genus, its 

 evident antiquity and the strong probabilit}' that 

 it was a resident of both sides of a Mississippi 

 sea before glacial times. Evidently much has 

 yet to be learned of the distribution of these 

 birds in Central America toward which Mr. 

 Chapman's paper will prepare the way. — W. P. 



The Birds of Massachusetts, by Reginald 

 Heber Howe and Glover Morrill Allen. Pub- 

 lished by subscription. Cambridge, Mass. 

 1901. 



In this little work embracing some 154 pages 

 of 8vo. size we have another annotated list of 

 Massachusetts birds. This is the ninth of its 

 kind which has appeared for the state in the last 

 seventy years, and is intended to bring the sub- 

 ject down t<> date. 



The book is divided into the following chap- 

 ters: "Preface," "The Faunal Areas," which 

 designates and defines them, and gives a list of 

 the characteristic birds of each. An "Explana- 

 tory Note" follows which refers briefly to the 

 source of information. Then comes the Anno- 

 tated List of Species." Here we find a marked 

 variance with the A. O. U. Check-list, as the 

 classification adopted, is that of Sharpe and 

 Ridgway. We thus find the Canada Grouse 

 placed at the bottom of the list, while Coccoth- 

 traustes vespertinus occupies the most exalted 

 position. The authors have also indulged in 

 emending some generic names or adopting- 

 the emendations of others and have substituted 

 Nyroca for Aythya, and Hyleinathrous for Tro- 

 glodyfes without giving an explanation. 



Three hundred and twenty species and forty- 

 two subspecies are included in this catalogue, 

 which gives "the status of each species, then 

 the dates of arrival and departure of species, 

 in Massachusetts." followed by annotations 

 taken from published lists and notes. 



This list is followed by one of "Extirpated 

 Species," including the Turkey. Whooping 

 Crane, Sandhill Crane and Trumpeter Swan. 



The next chapter deals with the "Extinct 

 Species" and embraces the Great Auk and Lab- 

 rador Duck. 



In the list of "Introduced Species" we find 

 that various parts of the globe have contributed 

 to swell the list of Massachusetts records, no less 

 than fifteen species being recorded. 



The list of "Species Erroneously Recorded" 

 is an interesting one, but we believe that some 

 of the seventeen species placed here might well 

 have been referred to a list of doubtful records. 



The next chapter deals with the "Apocryphal 

 Species" Picus phillipsii And. and Muscicapa 

 minuta Wils. "Recapitulation". Then comes a 

 Bibliography dating back to 1833 which consists 

 only of faunal lists, exclusively of Massachu- 

 setts. This is followed by a double index the 

 first of scientific, the second of vernacular 

 names. 



Ten birds recorded in the last list of Massa- 

 chusetts birds have been dropped, and twenty- 

 two have been added. 



The copy is a neat one printed on good paper, 

 its information is clear and in condensed form. 

 We are sorry to note that the edition embraces 

 only five hundred copies. — B. 



