Sept., 1917 



PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 



173 



conditions if his work induces their posses- 

 sors to turn them to the light. The author 

 has also taken much trouble to run down to 

 their sources several questionable records, 

 the correcting of which should be a cause 

 for rejoicing, as for instance the record of 

 the breeding on Santa Barbara Island of 

 Puffinus opisthomelas Coues, so often pub- 

 lished as authentic, which turns out to be 

 valueless. 



Except where modified by the Supplement 

 since published, the American Ornitholo- 

 gists' Union Check-List has been followed 

 instead of adopting the later rulings of some 

 of our well known investigators; but it is 

 distinctly stated in the introduction that it 

 was deemed the most convenient course, for 

 the public, to do this and to give the new- 

 est findings in the text only, without devi- 

 ating from the Check-List in the headings 

 of the species. This is probably to over- 

 come the objections some readers may have 

 to what may seem to them an old-fashioned 

 method of procedure. A few errors and 

 emissions appear in the text, such as are 

 practically impossible to keep out, and the 

 author of this review is happily in a posi- 

 tion to correct one or two, the occurrence 

 of one at least being indirectly his own 

 fault. 



The paper is divided into several chap- 

 ters, among the titles of which are Intro- 

 duction, Descriptions of the Islands, Prob- 

 lems Presented by the Island Avifauna, and 

 General Accounts of the Birds, followed by 

 a Tabulation of the Species and Subspecies 

 by Islands and by Manner of Occurrence, 

 with a bibliography and index. The tabula- 

 tions have been prepared with great care 

 and will be found most useful. They are 

 given as only approximately correct and 

 subject to changes as our knowledge of the 

 subject increases. While good judgement 

 has been shown in the classifications under 

 the head of Manner of Occurrence, the au- 

 thor naturally expects many corrections to 

 be made when more light has been shed 

 upon the matters in question. 



Under the head of Problems Presented by 

 the Island Avifauna, Mr. Howell touches 

 upon some of the conditions which exist, 

 and upon the probable reason for such con- 

 ditions as regards the formation of the is- 

 lands, separation from the mainland, differ- 

 ences in flora, etc. He presents some of 

 the problems that have arisen and suggests 

 some theories for their solution, but does 

 not apply them to individual races, and ad- 

 mits that there has not as yet been suffi- 



cient observational work done upon the is- 

 lands to allow us to draw definite conclu- 

 sions concerning such problems as the effect 

 of the changing geologic and climatic factors 

 upon the bird life, migration, etc. 



It would take too long to go into much 

 detail in this review, but a few remarks 

 upon some of the features under the head- 

 ing General Accounts of the Birds may not 

 come amiss. Naturally a great deal of space 

 could not be devoted to every species enum- 

 erated, partly because of the size of the 

 paper this would entail, and mostly for the 

 reason that but little data is available con- 

 cerning many of the birds. The notes upon 

 the Xantus Murrelet, and upon several of 

 the petrels are given at some length and 

 are of especial interest and value, as but 

 few, if any, ornithologists have had access 

 to all the material and notes that Mr. How- 

 ell has unearthed. He gives the occurrence 

 of the Greater Yellow-legs with some hesi- 

 tation, although in the second citation (Os- 

 burn, Coxdor, xi, 1909, p. 137) one speci- 

 men is recorded as shot by Beck on the 

 South Coronado Island. There is also ex- 

 tant a specimen, shot by J. Mailliard on 

 Santa Cruz Island, May 1, 1898 (no. 3284, 

 coll. J. & J. W. Mailliard), that was not 

 mentioned in the list of birds found on 

 Santa Cruz Island (Bull. Cooper Orn. Club, 

 i, 1899, p. 44) for the reason that only land 

 birds were included in that list, and the 

 value of a record of such a widely distrib- 

 uted species was not then recognized. At 

 the time the above cited list was made out 

 there were some quail (Lophortyx calif or- 

 nica vallicolal) upon the island, but as they 

 had been liberated there, and locality of 

 their origin was unknown, they were omit- 

 ted from the text. 



On page 54 of Mr. Howell's contribution, 

 Accipiter cooperi is given in the text as list- 

 ed by Mailliard in 1908, when it evidently 

 should have been in 1898, a typographical 

 error. On page 72 the statement that the 

 only state record for the Rusty Blackbird, 

 Euphagus carolinus (Miiller), is that of a 

 bird shot by Linton on San Clemente Island, 

 November 20. 1908, is incorrect, as his cita- 

 tion (3) will show, there being one in the 

 Mailliard collection (no. Ex2185), taken by 

 H. B. Kaeding in Amador County, December 

 15, 1895. The observations upon Carpoda- 

 cus mexicanus dementis, comparing the in- 

 sular with the mainland forms, are of espe- 

 cial interest, and the conclusion reached 

 that there are not sufficient grounds for re- 

 cognition of the subspecific form dementis 



