38: 



Correspondence. " t 



and by whom they were "previously recorded" for the State of Wash- 

 ington. To one so "fortunate" in his "bibliographical researches" surely 

 this should be an easy matter! 



It is almost a pleasure to state, however, that I have, by omitting to 

 place asterisks after Circus hudsouius. Asio wilsonianus, Chcetura vanxii. 

 Pica pica hudsouica, and Parus atricapillus occidentalism given my critic 

 some cause of complaint. These omissions are not only lamentable 

 errors but they illustrate in no small degree that "carelessness" which C. 

 F. B. has in such eminent degree both denounced and practised on this 

 occasion. 



By way of climax to the sermon on "activity," "faunal peculiarities," 

 and zoogeography, — we read the following: "but they [readers of 'The 

 Auk'] may wonder at the carelessness which enables the author to swell 

 his British Columbia list with species mentioned by Chapman and Pant/in 1 

 (whose recent paper he does refer to), and even to 'add' to the Wash- 

 ington record two birds whose type specimens undoubtedly came from 

 that State." 



The two birds referred to are Chcetura vanxi and Dryobatcs pubescens 

 gairdneri. 



My previous remarks on the Washington list cover both these cases, 

 the Woodpecker being starred and, in the original copy, the Swift also, 

 but in revising the proof the printer dropped the star and the omission was 

 overlooked in final proof-reading. Whether the types of these species 

 came from Washington is far from the "undoubted" fact which C F. B. 

 would have us believe. No careful critic presumes to set hard and fast 

 lines to the tvpe localities of J. K. Townsend's Columbia River novelties. 



Coming now to the main part of his accusation, C. F. B. has charged 

 me with adding as new to British Columbia, species already recorded by 

 Fannin and Chapman. 



Notwithstanding the gravity of that charge he does not designate which 

 they are, leaving it to be inferred there are several. In his list of errors 

 1 have found two names coming under this category. One of these is 

 Bubo virginianus siibarcticus and, as is inferred, it may be found in the 

 lists of both Chapman and Fannin. This was a pure and simple lapsus 

 pciuuc on my part and should have read B. virginianus arctic/ts. The 

 annotated list would show any one, careful enough to inquire, that this 

 was, as I have said, only a slip of the pen. It was due to carelessness, no 

 doubt, but not the wilful carelessness implied by the terms of its condem- 

 nation. The other bird is Glaucidium gnoma. Chapman's list recorded 

 only G. gnoma califomicum. In Mr. Fannin's list all the Pygmy Owls 

 of British Columbia are classed under one name, Glaucidium gnoma. Mr. 

 Fannin's list was chiefly based on western Cascade specimens, and as he 

 fails to distinguish between the type and its subspecies, and very little of 

 his collecting was done in the restricted "interior" habitat of true gnoma, 

 it is evident that califomicum was the form to which he had chief 

 reference. 



1 Italics mine. 



