Recent Literature. 83 



Proper " consists ol a general list of the species, with limited biblio- 

 graphical refeiences, and copious biographical and other notes, including 

 lists ol" the specimens obtained, their measurements, color of bill, feet, 

 iris, etc., as recorded from the fresh specimen before skinning, with a record 

 of nests and the number of eggs found in each. Many of the biographical 

 notices are quite extended, and add greatly to our knowledge of the species 

 to whicli they pertain. The Report, as a whole, is quite free from strictly 

 technical matter, and hence attractive to general readers and amateurs, as 

 well as of great value to specialists. Space forbids particular reference to 

 even tlie more noteworthy portions of this part of the Report, but we can 

 scarcely omit calling attention to the account of the Western Kingbird 

 (Tyranntis verticalis), in which is detailed the wonderful intelligence and 

 aflFection of several young birds of this species reared as camp pets, and 

 which became thoroughly domesticated. 



Although many of the ol)servations and results of Mr. Ridgway's field- 

 work with the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel are not now for the first 

 time placed before the public, the Report seems to have lost little of its 

 freshness. Although originally prepared, and even stereotyped, as early 

 as 1870, it has been so recast that in point of nomenclature it represents 

 the authoi"'s later views. — J. A. A. 



Recent Lists of the Birds of Central New York. — In "A 

 Directory of the Ornithologists of the United States," published at Utica, 

 N. Y., 1877, by S. L. Willard, Esq., sixteen pages are devoted to " A List 

 of the Birds of Central New York." The author's remarks in the way of 

 a prelude are thus briefly expressed : " The following is a complete list of 

 the birds of Central New York, with notes on their abundance." This 

 might lead one to expect a valuable contribution to our science, but a 

 perusal of the "iiist " proves this supposition to be erroneous. Two hun- 

 dred and sixty-seven species are enumerated, and among them are mentioned 

 Lophophanes hicolor, Polioptila ccerulea, Protonotaria citrcea (" occasional in 

 Central districts ; rare in Northern districts "), Helminthopliaga celata, 

 " Seiuriis ludoviciamis," Oporornis agilis, Stelgidopteryx serripennis, Vireo 

 philadelphicus, Ammodromus cmulacutus, Melospiza lincolni, Chondestes 

 grammaca, Guiraca cferulea, Cardinalis virginianus (" summer resident "), 

 Quiscalus major, Corvus " caj^ivorws" (" resident"), Empidonax acadicus, 

 Campephilus principalis, Strix pratincola, Cathartes aura, Meleagris gallo- 

 pavo var. americana, Tetrao canadensis (" resident in Northern districts "), 

 Cupidonia cujndo, Lagopus alhus, jEgialitis wilsonius, Micropalama himan- 

 topus, Ardea egretta, A. candidissima, A. ccerulea, Fuligula collaris, His- 

 trionicus torquatus, Ehynchops nigra ("occasional winter resident"), and 

 many others of equal interest. But the author gives no data whatever 

 concerning the dates and localities at w-hich the specimens were procured ; 

 nor does he, in a single instance, mention an authority in connection with 

 the occurrence of a species, thus holding himself responsible for all state- 



