Recent Literature. 83 



Pioper" consists ol a general list of the species, with limited liiblio- 

 graphical references, and copious biographical and other notes, including 

 lists of the specimens obtained, their measurements, color of bill, feet, 

 iris, etc., as recorded from the fresh specimen before skinning, with a record 

 of nests and the number of eggs found in each. Many of tlie biogiaphical 

 notices are iiuite exten<led, and add greatly to our knowledge of the s]iecie3 

 to which they pertain. The Report, as a whole, is (juite free from strictly 

 technical matter, and hence attractive to general readers and amateurs, as 

 well as of great value to specialists. Space forbids iiarticular reference to 

 even the more noteworthy portions of this part of the Report, but we can 

 scarcely omit calling attention to the account of the Western Kingbird 

 {Tyrannus verticalis), in which is detailed the wonderful intelligence and 

 all'eition of several young birds of this species reared as camp pets, and 

 which became thoroughly domesticated. 



Although many of the observations and results of Mr. Ridgway's field- 

 work with the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel are not now for the tirst 

 time i)laced before the public, the Report seems to have lost little of its 

 freshness. Although originally ]>repared, and even stereotyped, as early 

 as 1870, it has been so recast that in point of nomenclature it represents 

 the author's later views. — J. A. A. 



Recent Lists of the Birds of Central New York. — In " A 

 Directory of the Ornithologists of the United States," published at Utica, 

 N. Y., 1877, by S. L. Willard, Esq., si.xteen pages are devoted to " A List 

 of tlie Birds of Central Xew York." The autlior's remarks in the way of 

 a prelude are thus briefly expressed : "The following is a complete list of 

 the birds of Central New York, with notes on their abundance." This 

 might lead one to expect a valuable contribution to our science, but a 

 perusiil of the " List " proves this supposition to be en-oneous. Two hun- 

 dred and sixty-seven species arecnunierated,and among them are mentioned 

 Lophophanes hicolor, Polioplila ctmUea, I'rotonoiaria citnca (" occasional in 

 Central districts; rare in Northern districts"), Ilelminlhophaga eelata, 

 " Seiurus ludnvkianus," Uporornis agilit, Htdgidopteryx serripennis, Vireo 

 phitadelphicus, Ammodromus caudaeuUis, Melospiza lincolni, Chondestes 

 grammaca, Guiraca ceeruka, Cardinal^ rirginiamn ("summer resident"), 

 Quiscahis viajoT, Corvus " camtrorKs" (" resident "), Empidmmx acadicus, 

 Campephiliis principalis, Strix pratincola, Catharles aura, Meleagris gallo- 

 jHXvo var. americaiia, Tetruo canadensis (" resident in Northern districts"), 

 Cupidonia cupido, Lagopus albus, ^gialitis wiUoniu.i, Micropalama himan- 

 topus, Ardea egrelta, A. candidissima, A. carulea, Fuliyula coltaris, His- 

 trioniexis torquatus, Rhijnchops nigra (" occasional winter resident "), and 

 many others of equal intere.st. But the autlior gives no data whatever 

 concerning the dates and localities at wliicli the specimens weix- i>rocured; 

 nor does he, in a single instance, mention an authority in connection with 

 the occurrence of u species, thus holding himself responsible for all state- 



