°Sgj J Correspondence. ^Sl 



H;id tiie paper merited one half the space given it by its distinguished 

 critic, or had that gentleman a much smaller influence than lie is supposed 

 to have as an authority on American ornithology, I should refrain from 

 any rejoinder to his unhappy criticisms. Mayhap a few readers of 'The 

 Auk' have taken some pains to verify the rather startling disclosures of 

 C. F. B., and, like myself, have been somewhat amazed at the strange 

 mixture of truth and fiction which he has heaped upon the article. But 

 the majority have no time for such analysis ; they read the review, trans- 

 late the initials, and that settles it. For the just opinions of many such 

 readers of our quarterly journal I have much regard, and, ere they pass 

 final judgment on it, I would plead somewhat to the indictment. 



The "principal fault" of the paper is stated to be "a certain lack of 

 care and thoroughness in its preparation." 



Six months of fairly diligent labor was spent almost exclusively in pre- 

 paring the paper after my return to Philadelphia from the West. A pre- 

 liminary report containing nearly all of the objectionable features 

 designated by C. F. B., was published in 'The Auk.' All determinations 

 of importance were based on comparisons with ample material from the 

 principal museums and were in many cases confirmed by well-known 

 active members of the A.. O. U. 



My knowledge of the bibliography of Washington and British Columbia 

 birds is said to be "meagre," because of the "long array of species which 

 he proceeds to add to the list of birds known to occur in each of these 

 districts." 



In support of this assertion my reviewer names twenty-six such species 

 from one or the other of the two lists on pages 22 and 23 of my paper. On 

 page 22, referring to the main list in question, viz., that of additions to 

 previous faunal lists of Washington, I say, "to the combined lists of 

 Cooper, Suckley and Lawrence twenty-five species of Washington birds 

 are added. These, with those not included in Mr. Lawrence's Grays 

 Harbor lists arc:" — then follows the list. Anyone taking the trouble to 

 look over the names excepted to by C. F. B., "in one or the other list" 

 will see that he has quite ignored my foot-note on page 23, which states 

 that species in the list previously recorded by Cooper and Suckley are 

 designated by an asterisk. 



Two thirds of the birds taken exception to have this mark. Mv critic 

 has utterly failed to see that the list is simply one of species seen by me 

 and not recorded by Lawrence, and in so doing he has grossly misrepre- 

 sented me. Among other species in my Washington list, he gives as 

 "heretofore recorded," Aythya americana, Colymbus holbcellii, Larus 

 brachyrhynchns, Totauus Jiavifies, Falco columbarius suckley i and 

 Cypseloides niger\ None of these being recorded in Cooper, Suckley 

 and Lawrence it makes no difference, so far as the intent of said list is 

 concerned, whether these have been heretofore recorded or not. Apart 

 from this, however, I would ask C. F. B. to verify his own statement in 

 regard to these six birds by telling the readers of 'The Auk' just where 



