eS See 
Yok ead Correspondence. 379 
dates computed from sight records for the smaller thrushes and members 
of the genus Empidonax, than for any other species, and we feel that any 
general statement of the time of occurrence of these and a few other 
species based on ‘sight’ records, when we know that the closely allied 
species was also present, should be accompanied by another based solely 
upon such collected specimens as may be available. 
So much for the class of cases discussed by ‘J. D.’ and Mr. Taverner. 
Now as to the second category we feel that there is no escape for the editor 
and that he must simply use his best judgment as to what to publish and 
what to reject. No definite rules can be set up for him to follow. Several 
factors enter into the question; the reliability of the observer; the circum- 
stances of the observation; and the possibility of identification under the 
conditions given. A record of a rare warbler, for instance, is received. If 
we know nothing of the observer we make inquiries, and if the record is 
lacking in circumstantial details, we ask the observer for a more detailed 
statement. If all these prove satisfactory, if there was adequate time for a 
full study of the bird at close quarters with glasses, and characteristic 
markings were noted on the spot, and identification verified later from 
books or specimens, then the record seems worthy of acceptance provided 
that the editor feels that he, as an average observer, could identify the bird 
under the same circumstances. 
In the case of obscurely colored birds or those which have no prominent 
distinctive markings, and which cannot often be closely approached, like 
shore birds, gulls and other water birds; or warblers in autumnal plumage, 
we should probably reject all ‘sight’ records of rare or unusual species 
unless made under very exceptional circumstances. Rejections such as 
those referred to do not in any way reflect upon the accuracy or good faith 
of the observer. ‘They are simply cases that are physically impossible of 
definite determination without resort to the gun. 
In regard to obvious errors of observation, Dr. Frank M. Chapman, in 
a discussion of this question ! which can be read with profit in this connec- 
tion, says: “‘it is difficult, in fact sometimes impossible, to convince the 
observer of his error.” We have found that by placing before him un- 
named skins of the bird the observer thought he saw, and of other allied 
species, at about the distance at which the live birds were seen, that he is 
made to realize more clearly the difficulties which enter into the case. 
As we said before we cannot govern publication» All sorts of sight 
records, good, bad and indifferent are being published and will be published 
in increasing numbers. We face a condition not a theory, and the compiler 
of general works and faunal lists must decide for himself what to accept 
and what to reject, but if editors will try to live up as closely as possible 
to some such plan as above outlined they cannot fail to assist him materially 
in his work. Mr. Taverner’s suggestion to provide vernacular names for 
the specific groups as the ‘Check-List’ has both advantages and disad- 
vantages. The current use of ‘‘Brown-headed Chickadee”’ for the un- 
1 Bird-Lore, 1902, p. 166. 
