3IO 



Bird - Lore 



Nests and Nest-building in Birds. By 

 Francis H. Hereick. Journ. of Ani- 

 mal Behavior, Vol. I, 1911, pp. 159-192; 

 244-277; 336-373- 



In this extended paper Professor 

 Herrick classifies birds' nests on the basis 

 of the behavior of their builders, discusses 

 the function of nests, some of the factors 

 which aid in determining their site and 

 character, and describes in detail the 

 manner in which certain nests were 

 constructed from the laying of the first 

 twig or wrapping of the first fiber to their 

 completion. 



Parts I and II of this paper are sug- 

 gestive rather than comprehensive. The 

 marked variations in site and nests of 

 wide-ranging birds in response to dif- 

 fering environmental conditions, or the 

 relation between the type of the nest 

 structure and the condition of the young 

 at birth, for example, are hardly touched 

 on or not alluded to at all. On the other 

 hand, the descriptions of nest-building 

 methods of the Robin, Red-eyed Vireo, 

 Baltimore Oriole and others are admi- 

 rable illustrations of intensive observa- 

 tion, which should stimulate those who 

 have opportunity to definitely directed 

 effort in this but little-worked field. 



Professor Herrick concludes that nest- 

 building with birds is a purely instinctive 

 act, but states that there is "evidence 

 that birds adapt means to ends, or do things 

 to effect changes which they seem to 

 desire to bring about. In other words, at 

 times they seem to strive with an end in 

 view, and continue to work until their 

 aim is achieved. Whether such acts," 

 he adds, "are really attended by associa- 

 tion of ideas, or merely result from the 

 gradual elimination of useless movements 

 after successive trials, we cannot say." — 

 F. M. C. 



Birds of Arkansas. By Arthur H. 

 Howell. Bull. No. 38. Biological Sur- 

 vey, 1911. 100 pp.; I map, 6 plls., 4 

 text-cuts. 



As Mr. Henshaw, Chief of the Biologi- 

 cal Survey, remarks, in transmitting this 

 report to the Secretary of Agriculture, it 



"fills an important gap in our knowledge 

 of the avifauna of the Mississippi Valley." 

 Mr. Howell estimates the avifauna of 

 Arkansas at 300 species and subspecies, 

 and of these 255 have been recorded 

 on satisfactory evidence. The species 

 which doubtless occur, but which as yet 

 have escaped observation by the very 

 limited number of ornithologists who have 

 worked in the state, are very properly 

 included in this paper, with comments 

 on their status in adjoining areas, — 

 smaller type clearly distinguishing this 

 interpolated matter. 



Among the few resident observers in 

 the state, Mrs. L. M. Stephenson, of 

 Helena, is accredited with supplying the 

 most valuable information, while Mr. 

 Howell himself has made the most 

 extended observations by visiting natural- 

 ists. (April 28 to July, 1910.) 



One is impressed in looking over this 

 list by the numbers of birds which have 

 become rare or extinct in the state in 

 comparatively recent years. Of the 

 latter, one notes the Ruffed Grouse, Pas- 

 senger Pigeon, Paroquet, and Ivory- 

 billed Woodpecker; among the former the 

 American and Snowy Egrets, Whooping 

 and Sandhill Cranes, Long-billed Curlew, 

 Golden Plover, Prairie Hen and Osprey. 



It is to be regretted that, in so authori- 

 tative a publication as Mr. Howell's, the 

 A. O. U. Check-List is not followed more 

 closely. Uniformity is here of far more 

 importance than the use or omission of an 

 apostrophe, or the inclusion of races not 

 recognized by the A. O. U. Committee; 

 while the adoption only in part of modern 

 trinomialism results in a hybrid type of 

 nomenclature. Jimco hyemalis, for exam- 

 ple, according to current usage, is not the 

 name of the Slate-colored Junco, any 

 more than it is the name of any of the 

 other nine forms which collectively make 

 Junco hyemalis; and the mere fact that 

 only one of these forms is known from 

 Arkansas does not seem to warrant the 

 use of a binomial for it, any more than it 

 would warrant us in listing the species 

 following the Junco (on p. 65) as Peuccea 

 bachmam. 



