26 THE NIDOLOGIST 
much outlay. Mr, Robinson says that in sixteen days 
he collected ‘‘two hundred” skins, getting specimens 
of every land bird that he observed ina state of free- 
dom except the two common Vultures and a Caracara 
Eagle. He also took not a few mammals, reptiles, 
plants, and insects. 
When Mr. Richmond came to examine the birds 
received at the U. S. National Museum, there were 
found in the two hundred, no less than eight new 
species. Such work is worthy of emulation on the 
part of any active field Ornithologist. Doctor P. L. 
Sclater in ‘‘The Ibis” for January 1895, had invited 
the attention of explorers to the Island of Margarita, 
as a point, the Ornithology of which was but little 
known. Of this suggestion Lieut. Robinson took 
advantage, and during the winter of 1894-95 spent 
his brief vacation down there. 
“The Island of Margarita lies about midway 
between Laguayra and ‘Trinidad, and only some 17 
miles distant from the nearest point of the Venezuelan 
coast,” and of this island our author gives a fairly full 
description, illustrated by a good sketch-map. It is 
written in a very interesting vein, and in a way 
calculated to make the field naturalist say to himself, 
“IT believe I’ll go down for a few weeks and take a 
good look at theplace.’’ So far as this collection 
goes to show, “‘the arifauna of Margarita is wholly 
derived from Venezuela. No purely West Indian 
forms are present. In a very few cases the occurrence 
of a species in Venezuela is yet unproven, but its 
presence in Margarita is considered pretty good evi- 
dence of its inhabiting the mainland.’’ The literature 
of Margarita is very meagre, and it will most assuredly 
repay another and longer visit. Of the new species of 
birds the following are noted: 1, Margaritan Green 
Heron, Lutorides vobinsont: 2, Margaritan Crested 
Quail, Zup.ychortyx pallidus; 3, Margaritan Dove, 
Leptotila insularts; 4, Ridgway’s Scaled Dove, Scar- 
dafella ridgwayt; §, Short-winged Burrowing Owl, 
Speotyto brachypt-ra; 6, Margaritan Tree Creeper, 
Dendroplex longirostris; 6, Margaritan Grackle, Quis- 
calus tnsularis; 8, Gray- footed Hylophilus, ylophilus 
erisetpes. 
In exploring a little-known locality, such as the 
Island of Margarita, before starting out, the naturalist 
should, if possible, carefully study a collection of all 
the fauna thus far taken there, and this he should do, 
part passu with a thorough reading of all the available 
literature that touches upon the field of his operations. 
Animmense amount of time is thus gained, and he is 
pre-armed to collect and observe intelligently; so that if 
birds be what he is after, he will be able in the brush 
and forest, to distinguish pretty closely among common 
forms and those little-known or as yet undescribed. 
Moreover, no matter what the state of the plumages 
may be, either breeding or in the moult, he should 
take both sexes and young in as large series as possible, 
and make as full field-notes on habits, food, etc., as 
the time will admit. In collecting in the tropice, there 
is a great temptation on the part of young and 
unprepared collectors to spend the best of their time 
in making skins of the most brilliantly feathered forms. 
Now, as aruvle these are the very ones that are best 
known to science, and so when these collections come 
to the museums fo dentification, we too often find 
only nice series of the known species, with but a 
meagre sprinkling of the ‘“‘little fellows with modest 
plumage.” These last are now the kind that most 
frequently furnish the new species, or even families or 
genera, Were I collecting in the forests of South 
America to-day, Iam inclined to think, I would let 
most of the-‘‘gaudy chaps” go by, and devote my time 
and attention to the obscure and most inconspicuous 
little fellows of the bush and fens. Of course, Lieut. 
Robinson took everything that came in his way, for 
the reason that the problem presented to him was, is 
the fauna of Margarita derived from Venezuela, or is it 
largely an insulated one. That the former is the case, 
his expeditions and efficient work abundantly proved. 
R. W. S. 
Mr. Ernst Hartert of the Tring Museum, Tring, 
England, has in the July ‘‘Ibis” (1896) a very excellent 
paper on the Swifts, Goatsuckers, and the allies of the 
latter, the Podargide. It is illustrated by fine colored 
plates of £gotheles insignis and .£, affinis. both very 
interesting forms of caprimulgine birds. Especially is 
ct, insignis a note- worthy type, with its strong feet 
and claws; subfacial ciscs; stoulish beak; and 
feathers in either scapular region ; all reminding « one of 
the Owls. Mr. Hartert devotes several pages of his 
memoir to the discussion of the advantages of the 
trinominal system of nomenclature, and the recognition 
of subspecies, in Ornithology. It is very encouraging 
to hear a voice coming out from the very heart of Her 
Majesty’s kingdom, uttering such sentiments as the 
following: ‘‘As regards my treatment of closely allied 
forms, it may be known to my colleagues that I ama 
strong advocate of the study of swdspects not because I 
like them, but because I see there is something more 
than species only. This is one of the revelations 
brought home to Zoologists by Darwin and his school, 
and unless we close our eyes and ears against the facts 
before us, we must not merely admit that sharply 
separated species do not alone exist, but we must also 
acknowledge this fact in our systematic treatment of 
such forms, and recognize it in our nomenclature, or 
both our work and its nomenclature will be inadequate 
and insufficient.” To Americans, who have used 
trinomials for a dozen years or more, these words, 
coming at so late a date as 1896, will indeed sound odd 
and old, but better late than never. We cannot 
follow Mr. Hartert in all that he has given us upon 
this now well tested system here, but we can say that 
there will never arise any necessity for writing such 
subspecies (as heseems to fear) as Perdix perdix perdix, 
nor can we quite agree with him in his proposed 
method of indicating the type species of any particular 
genus. Space will by no means admit of my discussing 
this question here as fully as I should like to, and we 
can but congratulate Mr. Hartert upon having arrived 
in his conclusions at such a sound opinion as the one 
he expresses in the following words: ‘‘Therefore we 
must agree that the scientific systematic treatment of 
living animals demands the recognition of subspecies, 
if systematic zoology is to be more than a pastime, 
and if it is to take the important place in science which 
it ought to hold.” (pp. 366.) 
In speaking of the Common Swift of Europe (d@cro- 
pus apus (Cypselus apus, auctt. mult.|), he says, 
“Several of my friends assure me that they never heard 
of this bird having more than two eggs ina clutch.”’ 
Perhaps those people who so constantly suggest 
that the Common Swift lays but ‘‘two white eggs to 
the clutch,’’ are of the stock who believe that that 
species is in reality only some kind of a metamorphosed 
Hummingbird, with an anatomical structure inconveni- 
ently like a Swallow. Our author also gives us a good 
deal of interesting matter about various kinds of Goat- 
suckers, of both a morphological as well as of a sys- 
tematic nature, and, upon the whole, this useful 
contribution is strongly commended to students of 
Ornithology at large, coming as it does from the pen of 
one of the soundest writers upon the subject. —Rj. W.S. 
