OQ 



The Caxadiax Field-Nati;ralist. 



[V..)l. XXV. 



luder "Recent Literature "" is reviewed, 

 l)p. 479-480, On the Nest and Eg-gs of the 

 Common Teru (S. fluviatilis), A Compa- 

 rative .Study, by Wm. Rowan, E, Wolf and 

 P. L. Sulman, assisted by Messrs. Pearson, 

 Isaacs. Elderton and Tildsley. Biometrika, 

 Vol. XII. 1919, pp. 308-354, 5 plates. 



This is a mathematical correlation of the 

 exceedingly variable characfers of the eggs 

 and nests of this species with their envi- 

 ronment, to detect the relation if any be- 

 tween these apparently hap-hazard fact- 

 ors. In the course of the work many hun- 

 dred eggs were examined and measured and 

 compared with their immediate surround- 

 ings. While results are not conclusive on 

 any one point they are suggestive of lines 

 of future investigation. Thus, whilst there 

 was more uniformity, the eggs averaged 

 larger inthe good season of 1914 than in the 

 poor one of 1913. This may possibl}- liave 

 been due to the stricter elimination of the 

 Aveaker birds or those that departed farthest 

 from the optimum type the previous year. 

 Another point brought out, but the meaning 

 of which does not seem clear, was that tlie 

 most spherical eggs were found in the 

 most careles.sly built nests. Much other 

 food for thought is suggested that we have 

 not space to mention. This is work that 

 may well be carried on by those few who 

 are favorably situated to examine large 

 rookeries of variable species. The results, 

 even if negative, are worth while, for it is 

 as much a part of scientific pathfinding 

 to loeate the blind alleys as to mark the 

 highway. In reply to criticism that has 

 already l)een raised it may be remarked 

 that the senior author has informed us 

 that apart from the momentary and un- 

 avoidable fright caused by the intrusion 

 of the investigators the birds Avere not 

 disturbed and the great array of tabulated 

 data was gathered without tlie neicessary 

 loss of an egg. 



I Jnder ' ' Coi-respondenee ' '. 



W. E. Saunders and J. IT. Fleming ad- 

 ■ Iress a letter to the Editor, proposing that 

 in future, at the Annual Metings of the 

 A. O. I'., each member shall pay for his 

 or her own luncheons instead of being en- 

 tertained as guests by members of local 

 "i-ganizations. It was felt that, however 

 Ijospitable and willing these oi-ganizations 

 have been in the i)ast, it is throwing an 



annually increasing burden upon them thai 

 is greater than should be accepted. It may 

 be remarked that this was followed b.y a 

 circular letter to the membership, and, as 

 a result, at the late Washington meeting 

 the suggestion was acted upon. 



Pp. 499-505 are taken up with a discus- 

 sion on Popular Nomenclature, originating 

 independently with Wm. Rowan and Har- 

 rison F. Lewis, and replied to by tlie Editor,, 

 Witmer Stone. 



Mr. Rowan objects to the use of names 

 like Robin and Sparrow Hawk to Ameri- 

 can species when the terms are preoccupied 

 by entirely different Old World forms. He 

 suggests that we return to the system in 

 fern? before the 1910 Check List of prefix- 

 ing the adjective American to them. 



Mr. Lewis presents five propositions for 

 the making of popular bird names : 



1. — Provide for specific as well as sub- 

 specific names. 



2. — Avoidance of. clumsy names. 



3. — Changing inappropriate or mislead- 

 ing names. 



4. — Avoidance of the names of people 

 in name construction. 



5. — The use of modifiers to group names 

 when used for individual members of such 

 group. 



Mr. Stone, whilst dealing sympatheti- 

 cally with most of these views, jn-oclaims the 

 impossibility of applying a ''code" to the 

 construction of popular names, fearing the 

 introduction of "book names" and citing 

 eases where such have failed of general 

 adoption. In the spirit of Thompson Se- 

 ton's apt phrase "the genius of the lang- 

 uage" he objects to Rowan's proposal de- 

 claring in substance that to Americans 

 Planesticus niiyraforius is the Robin and 

 no other name will be generally adopted. 

 He does, however, ai)prove of Lewis' 

 fifth proposition. 



Whilst a hard and fast code such as is 

 applied to scientific names (and incident- 

 ally keeps shuffling our names about) may 

 not seem advisable and consideral^le lat- 

 itude must he given to established popular 

 usage, it does seem that some such prhi- 

 ciples might well be kept in mind. The 

 Check-list is now a ma.ss of "book names" 

 of the bookiest kind, and it does not seem 

 that it Avould i)ut any great inconvenience 

 u])on the general public were the most ob- 



