A Critique of Barrows' "' Michigan Bird Life." 29 



perience have led me to believe that — with certain excep- 

 tions about to be specified — the occurrence of birds in lo- 

 calities or regions lying outside their known habitats should 

 not be regarded as definitely established until actual speci- 

 mens have been taken, and afterwards determined by com- 

 petent authorities. But on no authority, however good, should 

 a mere field observation of any bird that is really difficult to 

 identify be taken as establishing an important primal record." 

 The fact that the species should or might occur in Mich- 

 igan because it has been secured or observed in a neighbor- 

 ing state or waters, does not, in the writer's opinion, entitle 

 the bird to a place in the Michigan list. It should actually 

 have been secured in the state and the specimen examined by 

 some competent authority before it is taken from the hypo- 

 thetical list. This constitutes the only strictly safe guide, and 

 should have been enforced in the past. 



Another thing to be carefully considered is the reliability 

 of the early records. It is not to the discredit of tlie early 

 observers to say that they were not generally as carefully 

 trained as the ornithologists of today, and that they were 

 usually unfamiliar with the museum specimens and litera- 

 ture. This particularly applies to western states, for many 

 of the now familiar western species were very rare in collec- 

 tions other than those of a few of the large eastern institu- 

 tions. Indeed, it was not until the appearance orf Baird's mas- 

 terly treatise in the ninth volume of the Pacific Railway Re- 

 ports (1858) that careful descriptions of many species were 

 available. These are facts that must be considered in any 

 comprehensive attempt to compile an accurate list of the 

 species of a state. 



If one gives due weight to the absence of actual Michigan 

 records, the probable errors of the early ornithologists, and 

 the unreliability of some of the later observers, thirteen of 

 the three hundred and twenty-seven species admitted by Bar- 

 rows to the Michigan ornis must be excluded until further 

 evidence is at hand. These species are as follows : 



1. Lams hyperboreus. Glaucous Gull. — No authentic Mich- 



