Recent Literature. l\l 



Minot's "Land and Game Birds of New England." — A stricture, 

 in the July Bulletin (Vol. VI. p. 145). on my work convinces me the more 

 firmly that ornithologically I am a heretic. Being a sincere heretic, and 

 being thus impugned, I wish to avow my creed, and to vindicate my 

 methods. As to the particular point assailed. I submit that the presenta- 

 tion of evidence, probabilities, and judgment, is not a statement of in- 

 ference as fact, and. moreover, that no statement ought utterly to be 

 condemned before the evidence has been either demanded or examined. 



I most willingly confess that, after five years' more experience and 

 judgment, there is much in my "Birds of New England" that I would 

 gladly alter: but my theories of work I have no reason to change. To 

 the servant of science the gun is often indispensable, not only for satis- 

 lying the judgment of others, but for confirming one's own observation; 

 but, on the other hand, I believe that ordinarily it far too often takes the 

 place of the naturalist's faculties and senses, and that too often the 

 animal love of sport or killing, and the human love of material acquisition, 

 are unconsciously his motives. It is astonishing how many persons are 

 dependent for their sight quite as much upon their fingers as their eves, 

 and to how many obtuse and illogical minds ( I make no personal reference 

 whatsoever) circumstantial evidence is of no value.* In this common 

 demand for tangibility, there seems to me a want of perception and 

 sentiment, of ideality and liberality. This may sound sentimental and 

 sententious: but I know not how better to express a strong feeling upon 

 which much of my practical work has been based. If the notes and eggs 

 that I can produce, though unaccompanied by a dried skin, are not what 

 I claim them to be. I defy any one on earth to tell me what they are. As 

 for wilful dishonesty, the gun surely is no protection against that. 



As arguments from analogy are usually misleading, I prefer suggestions 

 by comparison. What is evidence? If A testifies to seeing B at a 

 certain time and place, is his evidence to be questioned simplv because 

 he cannot now produce B in court? Is his evidence of no value, that a 

 certain builder built a certain house, because he cannot now produce the 

 body of that architect for identification ? If A can reproduce exactly B's 

 peculiar voice and intonation, can it reasonably be questioned whether 

 he has ever known him? Is not the question property: is this witness 

 of accurate observation, competent judgment, truthful memory and honest 

 purpose? or, on the other hand, if he is a perjurer, is his evidence to be 

 trusted, no matter what its nature? 



* " I hold that logical deduction from certain known facts may be a positive and 

 decisive kind of knowledge ; and that the mental processes concerned are strictly sci- 

 entific." .... 1 "feel little respect for a frame of mind that prefers to take 'ten to one" 

 chances of blundering empirically as against logical results of ratiocination." (Dr. 

 I • Mies, pp. 79-80, in Stearns's "New England Bird Life," Part I.) These remarks seem 

 fairly correspondent in spirit, if not in letter, to the feelings expressed above. I may 

 here add that the value of Mr. Stearns's new work renders that of his predecessors of 

 mm h le 3 account. ■//. D. .1/. 



