396 



General Notes. lOctober 



ing out on the latter from ^ to ^ their length. (I cannot give the exact dis- 

 tances, as the quills are in moult and not full grown.) Shafts of both white 

 to near tips. The two central tail-feathers are not longer than the other 

 tail-feathers. — N. S. Goss, Topeka, Kan. 



Brachyrhamphus hypoleucus off the Coast of Southern California. — ■ 

 On a return trip from the Coronados Isles to San Diego, California, May 

 20, 18S4, when about five miles out to sea, and a little north of the Mexi- 

 can boundary line, I shot a pair of Zantus's Guillemots. I have the birds 

 in my collection. Notes from 'Catalogue and Register,' entered from 

 memoranda talcen at the time of killing: — 



Depth of bill at base, .23; width, .20; gape, $ , 1.30, $, 140. Iris dark 

 brown ; bill black with sides of under mandible at base pale bluish ; inside 

 of legs, tops of feet and webs light blue; outside of legs, bottoms of feet 

 and webs dusky; claws black; the testicles a little larger than swollen 

 kernels of barley; no signs of the enlargement of any of the eggs in the 

 ovary! On the way up I saw three others but was unable to approach 

 near enough for a shot. 



The birds closely resemble B. marmoratns in winter dress, and, like 

 them, prefer to escape by diving 2i.x\d^ flying under the water, but when 

 hard pressed more readily take wing. This I account for by their legs 

 being longer, which enables them to spring at a bound clear of the water. 

 — N. S. Goss, Topeka^ Kan. 



'Avifauna Columbiana'— a Protest. — Coues and Prentiss's late 'Avifauna 

 Columbiana,'* while bearing the seal and token of its authorship in the 

 clear and woodsy style of the notes, that so often give us bright glimpses 

 of the life history of our birds, as well as in the arrangement of the scien- 

 tific and technical matter, is yet disappointing in some regards, owing to 

 the fact that the authors did not take pains enough to bring their work up 

 to date, or to revise by recent observation the work of twenty-one years 

 ago. 



As it stands, the list is misleading in some of its statements, and does 

 not thoroughly represent the recent progress of ornithology in the District 

 of Columbia. In their preface the authors refer with justifiable pride to 

 the first edition, prepared by them while yet in college, as standing "the 

 test of time better than boys' work generally does." In their present 

 edition "thei-e has been found little to correct," "and not much to add. of 

 the authors' own knowledge, because they have paid little attention to the 

 subject during the intervening years. They have, however, entirely recast 



* Avifauna Columbiana, by Drs. E. Coues and D. W. Prentiss, a revised edition of 

 their 'List of the Birds of the District of Columbia,' published in the 'Smithsonian 

 Report' for 1861. 



