Rccott Literature. 24 } 



selves diagnostic of the species, it is well enough to he content with a good 

 sight at the birds and a careful record of the position and surroundings. 

 Even if an occasional mistake be made in this way there is little harm done. 

 But he who would chronicle the occurrence of a rare nest in a region Avhere 

 the bird is not known to breed, must see to it that his chain of evidence is 

 absolutely complete. And no such evidence cati be complete without the 

 capture and proper identification of at least one of the parent birds. Cir- 

 cumstances, it is true, will sometimes render such an identification impos- 

 sible, despite the utmost efforts on the part of the collector. A bird may be 

 shot at and missed, or lost among the vegetation after it has fallen. In 

 cases of this kind the observer's impressions are always entitled to atten- 

 tion, provided the facts on which they are based are frankly and fully given. 

 The record then stands open to the scrutiny of all and can be judged on its 

 merits, while its acceptance or rejection will depend largely on the repu- 

 tation which the writer bears for accuracy and experience in such matters. 

 The author who disregards these cardinal principles must of necessity defy 

 the opinions of those who accept them, and he should expect his work to be 

 judged accordingly. 



But the most conspicuous act of daring remains to be mentioned. On 

 page 290 of the " Land and Game Birds " the author describes a species 

 of Empidonax — a new genus even was suggested, "to be called Muscac- 

 cipiter" basing his diagnosis on a bird which he saw flying about in the 

 shrubbery of his father's place //ear Boston. 



This last example needs no comment. We trust it is one of the things 

 that Mr. Minot would now "gladly alter": but it stands prominent 

 among the fruits of that " system of work " which he sees " no reason to 

 change" and is perhaps no more than an extreme example of the opera- 

 glass method of identification. If such work is to be recognized — and 

 toleration is in some sense recognition — the gun may indeed be dis- 

 pensed with and rare nests and new birds described ad libitum without 

 the shedding of more blood. But if ornithology is to continue to hold a 

 place among the sciences the leaders must see to it that such dangerous 

 heresy is promptly discountenanced. The quotation from Dr. Coues in 

 the foot-note to Mr. Minot's communication has absolutely no bearing, 

 either direct or indirect, on the points here at issue. It originally appears 

 in connection with some general remarks affecting the philosophic compo- 

 sition of fauna 1 and the methods followed in the preparation of certain lists 

 of New England birds. Dr. Coues's published sentiments regarding the 

 proper identification of important specimens are too well known to need 

 repetition, but any one who wishes to satisfy himself on this point will 

 find some pertinent remarks on page 101 of " Field Ornithology" and on 

 page 33 of "New England Bird Life." 



In conclusion I beg to assure Mr. Minot that the above remarks are 

 prompted by 110 ill-feeling and — excepting in so far as an author is to 

 be held responsible for his printed utterances — are intended to have no 

 personal application. Nor would I be understood as wholly condemning 

 the "Land and Game Birds of New England." On the contrary, leaving 



