the open are naturally different from those of the woodlands; hence 

 Manitoba has been taken as the western boundary of the zoological area 

 dealt with in this book. 



Although not a scientifically complete cheek-Ust of the birds of Eastern 

 Canada, this book is nearly so. A few species whose Canadian status is 

 doubtful, and some of extreme rarity or of accidental occurrence, have 

 been disregarded. The utmost freedom has been used in this respect and 

 species have been admitted freely upon the basis of expediency; some as 

 being of probable . occurrence and to be looked for, others as illustrating 

 some point of general interest more pointedly than regular native species, 

 and some because in the past they have been confused with commoner 

 forms. / 



PLAN OF THE BOOK. 



The systematic arrangement (see Classification, page 5, and nomen- 

 clature, page 7) used are those of the Check-hst of the American Orni- 

 thologists' Union, third edition, 1910. Though this arrangement is 

 acknowledged to be somewhat imperfect and its details tentative, it is 

 that upon which most of the recent American bird hterature is founded and 

 is the one in common use in North America. 



In the treatment of subspecies a departure has been made from cur- 

 rent practice, which the writer believes to represent more accurately the 

 facts of nature and modern concepts. Species have been treated as 

 aggregations of subspecies, each of equal rank and importance, and 

 not, as is customary, as species with subordinate sub-species depen- 

 dent upon them. The species is first given as a whole, including its 

 subspecific races, and under a subhead mention is made of the special 

 subspecies that occur within the geographical scope of the work. This has 

 caused no confusion or change except in the use of vernacular names in 

 which the reader will find a few departures from those given and authorized 

 by the American Ornithologists' Union. In the scientific nomenclature 

 the true relative importance of species and subspecies has been expressed; 

 but the common names have not heretofore always reflected this conception 

 of subordination and this fact iji many cases has caused the use of definite 

 subspecific terms when it was by the very nature of the case impossible to 

 determine their correctness or when it was unadvisable to recognize them. 

 Thus there has been a tendency to attach unwarranted importance to 

 these minor distinctions in popular as well as scientific estimation. In the 

 correction of this condition certain adaptations of common names have 

 been necessary, but as Httle change as possible from accepted practice 

 has been made. Older terms have been revived wherever possible, but as 

 current names have also been given no confusion should result. It has, in 

 some cases, been necessary to apply the recognized type subspecific name 

 to the whole species and adopt a new one for the form so robbed. In doing 

 this it was advisable that as little change should be made in current usage 

 as was consistent with the end in view. Therefore, except where good 

 reasons prevented, the new subspecific name was formed by prefixing 

 an adjective to the specific term hitherto appUed to it. Each departure 

 from accepted practice has been decided upon its own merits. Though 

 there can be little doubt as to the advisabihty of the principle of the reform, 

 the manner of carrying it out has been the subject of much thought, con- 

 siderable consultation with others, and some hesitation in individual cases. 



