180 



The Canadian Field-Naturalist 



[Vol. XXXVI 



in keeping his attention focused on probabilities. 

 The policy of reversing the sequence of species 

 and beginning with the Thrushes instead of the 

 Grebes, reverting to an obsolete system, is, to 

 any one taking an active interest in modern 

 ornithological literature, an exasperation rather 

 than the assistance it is claimed to be. 



The Key to Birds' Nests, by Dr. Arthur Allen, 

 republished from "Bird-Lore," is an attempt to 

 identify nests without knowledge of their owners. 

 It is an interesting attempt and shows much 

 field knowledge on the part of the author, but who 

 wants to make records on such evidence? No 

 word of caution is given as to its use and it can 

 easily be imagined what a host of new breeding 

 records may be given to Illinois when the enthus- 

 iasm that outruns experience begins to use it. 

 Such a key may have value but is a direct en- 

 couragement to the hasty identification that is the 

 prevailing weakness of the beginner. 



The bulk of the brochure is taken up with a 

 Comprehensive List of the Birds of Illinois 

 prefaced by an introduction by Robert Ridgway 

 that contains an interesting discussion of the life 

 zones shown on the accompanying map, and some 

 valuable facts regarding recent and past changes 

 in the bird life of the state. It almost goes without 

 saying that this section is absolutely satisfactory 

 and authoritative. When it comes to the Com- 

 prehensive List itself we regret that we cannot say 

 as much. 



The fact that no scientific names are used is 

 probably no objection in a popular work of this 

 nature but giving subspecies the same prominence 

 in treatment as full species without even trinomial 

 nomenclature to distinguish the lesser facts from 

 the greater cannot very well be defended. It 

 certainly exalts the subspecies above its proper 

 relative importance and leads the beginner out of 

 his depth before he learns to swim. Surely no 

 bird-man or woman to whom scientific names are 

 stumbling blocks is competent to make the finer 

 subspecific distinctions. 



With all due regard to the popular nature of the 

 list the annotations under the species are far from 

 satisfactory, reflecting standards of thirty years 

 ago rather than of to-day. The term "positive 

 record" i.s used freely, but without further explana- 

 tion it means little more than the similar expres- 

 sion, "Identification positive", did on the old egg 

 labels. A great many old records are quoted 

 without further comment than the authority's 

 name. These names are great enough to com- 



mand respect but the implied assumption that 

 present day ornithological experts knew as much 

 about birds in their youth as they do to-day is 

 straining the probabilities. Doubtless they them- 

 selves would be the first to urge caution in ac- 

 ceptance of many of these early records. In 

 many cases too, there is nothing to suggest that 

 they may represent an ancient order of things 

 that has passed forever. Many species are noted, 

 upon which further information is desirable. 

 The Pomarine and Long-tailed Jaegers are given, 

 but not the Parasitic; Great Black-backed Gull 

 is inferred "not uncommr^n"; Laughing Gull, 

 Gull-billed and Least Tern, Cinnamon Teal, 

 Barrow's Golden-eye, Harlequin Duck, The 

 Greater Snow Goose (given as "probably more 

 numerous" than the Lesser), Cackling Goose, 

 Brant, the Western Sandpiper (given as of regular 

 occurrence), Western Goshawk and others occur 

 in the list. Some of these records are probably 

 correct, but others undoubtedly should not have 

 been included without more careful investigation 

 than is evident in the context. It is interesting 

 to note that amongst the more generally familiar 

 small land birds fewer surprises are evident. 



It seems rather regrettable that at least a brief 

 bibliography of the local field has not been in- 

 cluded. A list of the principal works on the birds 

 of the state would offer suggestions for side reading 

 and additional information to the beginner and 

 assist the more serious student in verifying or 

 examining the evidence on some of the doubtful 

 points. 



It is an ungracious task to slate sincere enthus- 

 iasm but when enthusiasm takes up a difficult 

 task it should be sincere enough to take it seriously. 

 The making of a proper faunal list is an immense 

 undertaking, how immense few realize, but unless 

 well done it is better not done at all. Even, or 

 perhaps, especially when it is planned for popular 

 consumption, is accuracy necessary. The ex- 

 perienced ornithologist can often recognize loose 

 work and guard against being misled by it but the 

 amateur has no such safeguard of knowledge. 

 If we leave out the question of accuracy for its 

 own sake, and undoubtedly a popular work can 

 be just as accurate within its scope as a scientific 

 one, there is the question of example. The begin- 

 ner can hardly be blamed for loose work when a 

 low standard is set before him as a text book. 



If this plain speaking suggests to others a 

 realization of responsibility in work of this sort it 

 will compensate for the pain it may incidentally 

 cause the author of the work whom we otherwise 

 esteem most highly. — P. A. T. 



