THE OOLOGIST. 



16S 



A Word of Criticism. 



The size and amount of contents of 

 ornithological, as of other journals is 

 determined by the financial resources, 

 which in most cases is largely deter- 

 mined, in turn by advertising patronage. 

 Therefor, though the readers are sup- 

 plied with unsatiable appetites they are 

 less directly responsible for this phase 

 of their journal. 



The quality of the contents however, 

 is a matter determined by the ability 

 and generosity of the readers as well as 

 the selective judgment of the editor, so 

 if the quality of contents of a volume 

 of a periodical for which we subscribe 

 and contribute (or should contribute, if 

 capable) we should remember we are 

 jointly responsible for the disappoint- 

 ment. To this not only carefully se- 

 lected and prepared contributions, but 

 also suggestions and criticisms also may 

 tend to materially improve a periodical 

 without in the least increasing its cost. 



A comparison of the current Oolo- 

 GiST with some of those of past years, 

 would certainly disappoint the thought- 

 ful reader, it is not alone in reduced 

 size which we must remember is often 

 a financial necessity, but in the quality 

 of the contributions. In other orni- 

 thological literature as well as in the 

 periodicals there has of late been an 

 unfortunate tendency to "re-hash." 



If one has a good descriptive work 

 by Brown covering the whole field, how 

 much is he profited when Smith in turn 

 gets out another which gives him a 

 repetition of the identical information 

 contained in Brown's? If ornithologi- 

 cal books or government publications 

 present us with information on a cer- 

 tain phase of the study in question, are 

 we likely to be interested in a re hash 

 by some periodical which really adds 

 not one item of original information^ 

 And this last brings us to the real point 

 of the whole thing. If I wrote an arti- 

 cle accurately describing the Red- 



shouldered Hawk, its nest and eggs, 

 and it is published in one of the orni- 

 thological magazines, few are interest- 

 ed, not merely because the bird is very 

 common but because the readers can 

 every one turn to his Coues' Key, 

 Ridgway's Manuel or any one of the 

 admirable complete treatises, and if he 

 happens unfamiliar with the bird in 

 question, find what is wanted, in other 

 words I have not given one word of 

 original information. If I compile a 

 local li^t of birds and enter descriptions, 

 range, etc., I have wasted my readers 

 time just so far as it has been taken up 

 by that material which could be found 

 in any descriptive treatise, by informa- 

 tion which was not original. In the 

 individual case of the Oologist too 

 many such old time contributors as the 

 Rev. P. B. Peabody, Prof. P. M. Sillo- 

 way, and Mr. H. C. Lillie have lapsed 

 into silence; called away doubtless by 

 more pressing duties, while still faith- 

 ful contributors have on their part 

 lapsed into the habit of contributing 

 such matter as requires least trouble 

 for preparation, the least amount of 

 patient original investigation to get at 

 the knowledge involved. 



Out here in the Cuban wilds, 1 can 

 not refer to the particular issue, but 

 well do I remember an article pub- 

 lished in the Oologist a few years ago 

 on the nesting of a pair of Spotted 

 Sandpipers by Roy G. Fitch, since de- 

 ceased. I do not believe that one who 

 read that article but what was deeply 

 impressed by its extraordinary value, 

 and yet it was of the nidification of a 

 common bird. The secret was its ori- 

 ginal information. Facts therein given 

 I do not suppose could be found in any 

 ornithological work extant. 



Descriptiots of traits of habit not 

 commonly recorded in the books, of 

 newly heard peculiar notes and songs, 

 unusual occurrences of species, of "rare 

 takes" in relation to species not com- 

 monly well known, and particular of 



