mist, Dr. Joseph Grinnell, and his no less gifted brother-in-law, Mr. Harry Swarth. 

 In some few cases I have differed from these authorities and have disallowed their 

 claims, not as being mistaken in fact, but as being, on occasion, too fine-spun or ethereal 

 for mortal allegiance. Other distinctions, no less finely shaded, I have allowed, for no 

 better reason, perhaps, than inertia or to show esprit de corps, or else to provide a dainty 

 target for a good-natured shaft. Taxonomy is not an exact science, and we are under 

 no bonds to an artificial consistency. Furthermore, it may be as well at the outset to 

 let the student into the secret of our perplexities. We have no wish either to mystify 

 him or to impress him with a show of infallibility. The realm of ornithology, and espe- 

 cially the field of taxonomy, has been much trampled and much shot over, yet there 

 may be rich ore just below the surface, or even veritable oil domes of truth awaiting 

 release. 



For subject headings I have selected names applicable to the species as a whole, 

 wherever found, provided two or more races of the species appear on the California list. 

 This will introduce certain names unfamiliar to western eyes, as, for example, "Solitary 

 Vireo," instead of "Cassin Vireo" ; but it will have a salutary effect in stressing the value 

 of the species, and in restraining our tendency to regard geographical races as quasi- 

 species, through the operation of the naming fallacy. Calling the bird a Cassin Vireo 

 should not blind our eyes to the fact that it is a Solitary Vireo, only a shade different 

 from the eastern representative of this species. For those cases where only one sub- 

 species is found in California, there seems to be no recourse save to yield a quasi-specific 

 value to the local name. In the case of Zonotrichia gambeli gambeli and Z. g. nuttalli, 

 I have deliberately disregarded the rules, in order to stress the differences between the 

 two races, as well as to exemplify the fact that consistency is impossible where a hard 

 and fast mechanical device, like nomenclature, obscures phylogenetic differences 

 infinitely varied. 



Considerable care, too, has been taken in the readjustment or reappraising of 

 common names; for experience shows that these may be more enduring than so-called 

 "scientific" names. In some instances I have used one designation in the subject title 

 and another for the same bird in the "running title." By placing both before the public 

 it may be possible to establish through usage some ground of preference not now ap- 

 parent. Some names previously in use were misleading and have been frankly discarded ; 

 but no departure from custom has been registered save for good reason. 



In compiling General Ranges, I have been chiefly indebted to the A. O. U. Check- 

 List (3rd Edition), but have supplemented its findings by reference to Ridgway or 

 Bent, or to more explicitly western authorities. In determining the Ranges in Califor- 

 nia, I am under the deepest obligation, by permission, to Dr. Grinnell's "Distributional 

 List" (1915), as well as to other pamphlets published by the Cooper Ornithological 

 Club, notably those by Willett, Tyler and Howell. I have also kept accurate notes of 

 all occurrences throughout my own ornithological wanderings, and have thus been able 

 to confirm or to supplement Grinnell's well-balanced conclusions. 



In presenting the "Authorities," I have been fortunate in enlisting the services of 

 Dr. Tracy I. Storer (about 60 paragraphs) and Mr. Harry Swarth, and these gentlemen 

 are responsible for the citations themselves. It was intended at first to offer only "first 

 publication," the citation upon which inclusion as a bird of California rested, although 

 it was not always possible to secure even such. But it would have seemed a pity not to 



vi 



