THE OOLOGIST. 



181 



those which dwell upon the death agony 

 of some wild creature. On the other 

 hand, the most keen enjoyment can 

 certainly be found in the observation of 

 natural objects with a field glass. 



But he who states that one can "know 

 the birds" as well with the glass alone 

 as by the combined method of the pres- 

 ent day working ornithologist, either is 

 blessed with a pair of optics of the 

 strength of oil emersion lenses, or must 

 needs be satisfied with what others have 

 written (and this was probably learned 

 at the expense of bird life) 



The conscientious working physician 

 to-day has Jiterature piled high upon 

 his shelves, regarding symptomatology, 

 therapeutics, etc., but I warrant, that 

 no one wishes to employ a doctor who 

 has not experienced what his books and 

 professors have taught him, and I 

 doubt also if the doctor himself is sat- 

 isfied to merely cram his mind full of 

 the facts and teachings of others. 



When we come to view the purely 

 ornithological side of the argument, the 

 fact that there are two ways of looking 

 at it becomes plainly evident. It is al- 

 so evident that both sides are in a meas- 

 ure correct, and productive of good. 

 For instance it is not necessary to mur- 

 derously slaughter half a flock of "red 

 birds" to "positively identify" them, 

 but I doubt greatly the ability of any of 

 my numerous and well informed friends 

 to distinguish between many of the 

 species and sub-species, — for instance 

 between Dendroica palmarum, and D. 

 p. hypochrysea, by means of the field 

 glass alone. But my friend will say, 

 "We are not called upon to do this 

 particularly for the habitat of the two 

 is different, and the locality in which 

 we observe the bird is enough to dis- 

 tinguish it." 



Now let us suppose that "contrary to 

 all expectation" one of these birds is 

 observed in the habitat of the other. 

 The field glass man observes it and 



from its almost identical appearance, 

 he makes no particular observation. 

 On the other hand, our friend with the 

 dangerous weapon thrashes through 

 the underbrush, intent upon destroying 

 life, the straggler falls and the li3t of 

 the avifauna of the district is increased. 

 Surely such things have happened. I 

 quote at length from a somewhat caus- 

 tic but altogether true criticism of un- 

 certain identification, by that well 

 known authority, Mr. William Brews- 

 ter, Auk, Oct., '02, p. 420. 



'It is with reluctance that we offer 

 any criticism of labor which results in 

 so much pleasure and profit as the edit- 

 ing of "The Auk." For some time 

 however it has seemed to us that a 

 stricter censorship of items for the 

 'General Notes' would result in a much 

 more satisfactory standard in that de- 

 partment. Many interestiug birds have 

 lately been recorded as seen, not shot^ 

 by observers whose capacity for ac- 

 curate observation is absolutely un- 

 known to ornithologists in general. 

 Some of these records seem to bear on 

 their face, evidence of error. There 

 appeared for instance in 'The Auk' for 

 July, 1902, p. 297, a list of arrival in 

 the Northern Adirondacks. The author 

 lists the White-eyed Vireo, and records 

 its arrival from April 25th to April 

 30th. There is no mention of the Soli- 

 tary Vireo in the list. This seems 

 enough to arouse suspicion. When one 

 notes farther that the date of arrival of 

 the Wilson's Thrush is given as from 

 April 20 to April 25th, nine days ear- 

 lier than the date given in Chapman's 

 'Handbook' for Sing-Sing, N. Y., and 

 that the Hermit Thrush does not ap- 

 pear in the list, it seems surprising that 

 the list should have been printed with- 

 out the least editorial comment. 



"We would respectfully suggest that 

 no record of a bird merely observed 

 where there is any chance error, be ac- 

 cepted, unless the observer be well 

 known to the editor, or to some orni- 



