^°'i9^'"^] Recent Literature. 305 



species recorded is 261, of whiicli 19 are classed as permanent residents, 

 130 as migrants, 107 as summer residents, and 14 as winter residents. 

 Although " the nomenclature used by the American Ornithologists' Union 

 has been followed," it has not been brought up to date, " the names given 

 being those found in Ridgvvay [5/cJ and other accessible manuals," 

 better to adapt the list "for popular use," as "the list is not issued for the 

 professional ornithologist." 



The list is briefly annotated, but is evidently not based on thorough 

 acquaintance with the ornithology of the State, and thus unfortunately 

 contains some errors, both of omission and commission. 



These need not be here dwelt upon, since Mr. Reginald Heber Howe, Jr., 

 has pointed them out in a recent extended review of the list.' Mr. Howe 

 states that he had had in view for some time the publication of a list of 

 the birds of Vermont, and that he had "collected and compiled all the 

 available data," which he now presents in the form of a review of 

 Professor Perkins's 'Preliminary List.' Each species is taken "for 

 convenience sake," in the order of the original list, and corrections of 

 misstatements as to seasons or manner of occurrence are corrected, 

 species improperly included are eliminated, and omitted species are 

 added. According to this author's 'recapitulation' (p. 22), the total 

 number of species entitled to recognition as Vermont birds is 255, as 

 against " 266" (26i-|-3 informally mentioned =: 264) in the Perkins list, 

 27 species and 3 subspecies having been " expunged," and 14 species and 

 2 subspecies added. Of the additions, however, four-fifths are water 

 birds, for the most part of casual or accidental occurrence, and several of 

 the "expunged " species have quite as good a right to a place in the list as 

 some of those Mr. Howe adds. In other cases Professor Perkins admitted 

 species on the authority (which he states) of other observers, which 

 authority, justly or unjustly (doubtless the latter, in some cases) Mr. 

 Howe rejects as insufficient. In short. Professor Perkins's list is not such 

 a bad list, as lists go when not prepared by an expert; it contains loose 

 statements as to the manner of occurrence of quite a number of species, 

 includes a few on insufficient data, and omits a few others, usually of 

 rare or accidental occurrence, recorded in such a way as readily to be 

 overlooked by the ordinary compiler. On the other hand Mr. Howe's 

 review, while correcting many of the defects of the Perkins list, is 

 hypercritical in spirit, and not altogether consistent in treatment of 

 practically similar cases. Take the Canvasback Duck, Barrow's Golden- 

 eye, the Least Bittern, Dowitcher, etc., included as positively known to 

 occur by Perkins but thrown out by Howe because no Vermont specimen 

 can be cited, and the Marbled Godwit, etc., included on the basis of its 



'A Review of Prof. George H. Perkins' "A Preliminary List of the Bird 

 found in Vermont." By Reginald Heber Howe, Junior. Contributions to 

 North American Ornithology, Vol. II, pp. 5-22. Jan. 30, 1902. 



