1850 TO 1865 255 
entertained any doubts myself upon the subject, I would have waived 
them to the better judgment of one so much more competent to 
decide. It may yet be that it belongs to a different genus from the 
oenanthe, but be the bird designated as oenanthoides. In that case 
what becomes of the right of priority? Must we retain the specific 
name oenanthoides? If not, I propose to call it after our friend 
Cassin. No one is more entitled by his ornithological research to be 
so complimented, and he has not, that I am aware, been noticed in 
that way as he deserves. 
I have been engaged this winter in getting together as complete 
a set of drawings of varieties of eggs and of new species as possible 
and in preparing to commence the text to accompany the drawings. 
After all, the drawings constitute the great basis and corner-stone 
of the work. They are an essential element as well as the whole 
novelty—or nearly the whole. A portion of the account of nesting, 
description of eggs etc. is new, but a large part must also be taken 
from others. I mean between this and next winter to get ready 
all my notes to all the birds of prey, and then with that and all the 
drawings, a complete idea of the scope and character of the entire 
work may be had. 
Yours very truly, 
T. M. Brewer. 
From Spencer F. Baird to George P. Marsh, Constantinople. 
WasuincTon, February gth, 1851. 
My pear Mr. Marsu:— 
Don’t accuse me of intentional neglect in not answering your 
two letters (Aug. 23 and Oct. 19) at an earlier date. Hoping from day 
to day to hear of the keg, and next to report its arrival, I delayed 
writing until I got out of all patience. In this unhappy frame of 
mind, I wrote to Iasigi & Goddard, and lo! the keg came on by return 
of Express. This was late last night, and as to-day is Sunday, I must 
defer the aperture (will this word do?) until to-morrow; after which 
operation I will report further. A thousand thanks, however, for 
your kindness and consideration, whether the fishes be in good or 
bad odor. 
