Recent Literature. l6j 



Mexican Boundary; inclusive of Lower California; exclusive of Green- 

 land." This is, therefore, not the first time that Lower California has 

 been included in a catalogue of North American birds. While agreeing 

 most fully with Mr. Ridgway in all that he says respecting the ornitholog- 

 ical affinities of these outlying appendages as well as of a large part of 

 Mexico, we still greatly regret that the southern boundary of the United 

 States has not been uniformly adhered to as the southern limit of North 

 America in our check lists and catalogues of North American birds. 

 Since for convenience's sake an arbitrary line must be selected, at least 

 for much time to come, it seems best for purposes of statistical and 

 historical comparisons to choose the one ostensibly recognized in the 

 earlier catalogues. 



A few words further in respect to the scope of the new catalogue. Mr 

 Ridgway tells us that he is " constrained, by important and carefully con- 

 sidered circumstances, to retain in the list some seven or eight species of 

 Mexican birds treated by Professor Baird in volume ix. Pacific Railroad 

 Reports (* Birds of North America'), and included in the Catalogue of 

 1S59. They were all obtained just across the Rio Grande, and therefore it 

 may be deemed perfectly safe to assume that their occasional occurrence 

 on our side of the river is certain, and their capture there merely a ques- 

 tion of time. Ten species published by J. P. Giraud as having been obtained 

 in Texas, but which have not been subsequently recorded from within 

 our limits, are also included, there being every probability of their oc- 

 currence there, while Mr. Giraud strenuously maintained, to the dav of 

 his death, that they were really collected in that State." 



Mr. Ridgway further says : "Neither are we prepared to relinquish cer- 

 tain Audubonian species which at present are known only from the works 

 of their describer (e. g., Rcguhis cux'ieri, Peri$soglo.<sa? carbonata, De>i- 

 drccca? montana [described and figured originally by Wilson] and Myio- 

 dioctes? minutus), as w^ell as two well-known species given by Audubon on 

 his own authority (Chrysomifris •magellanica = C. notata and Eudoc- 

 imus ruber), having full confidence, as we do, in his veracity." After 

 alluding to three instances . in which Audubon was " evidentlv im- 

 posed upon." Mr. Ridgway continues : " But the birds which we have 

 called special attention to above are all so clearly described and accurately 

 figured that we must either regard them as valid species or, as the onlv 

 alternative, view them as mainly the creation of Audubon's brain and 

 pencil. To do the latter, however, on the purely negative ground that no 

 one else has met with them, seems to us not only a gross injustice to his 

 memory, but. laying aside personal considerations altogether, also a most 

 insecure position to take. The type of Emberiza \_Spiza\ toxvt/set/di, de- 

 scribed by Audubon forty-six years ago, remains unique to this day; 

 but since it fortunately exists in an excellent state of preservation, we 

 have, in this case at least, positive evidence of Audubon's good faith. 

 The species may now be extinct, and so may "Cuvier's Kinglet,' the ' Car- 

 bonated' and 'Blue Mountain Warblers,' and the ' Small-headed Fly- 

 catcher': but we have very strong faith that the 'lost' species will even 



