1»)1 Correspondence. [jan, 



should have been stated in the Check-List, or the treatmenl made uniform 

 throughout. The ranges likewise Bhould have been those of the sj 

 where the binomial is used. These discrepancies are however, not very 

 serious in the ease of these exotic species which some think have no place 



:it .-ill ii> tlir main text of the Check-List. 



;> As regards geographical distribution Dr. Bishop seems to be just a 



little hypercritical. The writer undertook the preliminary revision of the 



ranges and was forced to limit his compilation to such works as Ridgway's 



' Birds of North and Middle Ameriea,' Chapman's and Mrs. Bailey's 

 'Handbooks.' Bishop's list in 'The Water Fowl Family' and the latest 

 state lists. The lnde\ to 'The Auk' was not published at the time this 

 work was done, and to have attempted any further research in the time 

 at his disposal would have been impossible Subsequently, as explained 

 in the preface to the Check-List, Dr Merriam and his assistants on the 

 Biological Survey revised the ranges with the aid of the extensive reeords 

 of the Survey. The fact that the writer was engaged upon this work was 

 noticed in 'The Auk' and considerable unpublished data was submitted 

 to him. allot" which was utilized. It seems hardly fair however, to charge 

 the Committee with failing to use unpublished material in the possession 

 of individuals, or to seareh out every record of the casual occurrence of a 

 species. Some at least of the reeords Or. Bishop mentions were not pub- 

 lished until after the Cheek-List appeared and the Alaskan Bald Eagle 

 was not even shot until the Cheek-l.ist was almost entirely in type! 



However, it would be an admirable thing if Or. Bishop's criticism should 

 induce some ornithologist in each State to carefully study the ranges as 

 given in the Oheek-l.ist and supply any omissions or corrections that may 

 be necessary, for the area with which he is familiar; in order that BUCh 

 material shall be available to the Committee in the future. 



The more discussion and the more cooperation in this work the better. 



WrrasB Stokb.] 



Destruction of Sapsuckers. 

 To ihb Editor ok ebb Avk: 



s The Directors of the Massachusetts Audubon Society by letter, 

 and Mr. C. J. Maynard in print. 1 have objected to the recommendation 

 by the Biological Survey of the use of strychnine in destroying sapsuckers, 

 because hummingbirds visit the drills to feed on the sap. I would much 

 appreciate an allowance of space in ' The Auk ' for a defense of our position. 

 In the first place Mr. Maynard apparently has formed his opinion from 

 a perusal of Banner's Bulletin 506 which contains only a brief abstract of 

 the hundred page bulletin on "Woodpeckers in relation to trees and wood 

 products ' In that publication it is made clear that the greatest damage 

 done by sapsuckers is not killing trees, but rendering defective the wood 



i Eteoordsof Walks and Talks with Nature, vi. No. 10. Doc. 5, 1912, iv 



