98 



THE CONDOR 



Vol. XX 



Both parts of this statement are wrong, and 

 the correlation implied is doubtful. The 

 Lucy Warbler is stated (vol. in, p. 119) to 

 have been observed by "Dr. Gambel" on 

 "Santa Catalina Island"] 



Concerning the Bell Sparrow (vol. in, p. 

 49) the implication in regard to habitat is 

 erroneous. The Gray Vireo is disposed of 

 (vol. in, p. Ill) in a text mention under 

 "Bell's Vireo" as if it were a subspecies of 

 that bird or else very similar in habits and 

 structure — which it is most emphatically 

 not. It is to be noted in this connection that 

 the whole subspecific concept is botched. 

 Why can't mention of subspecies be omitted 

 altogether from books intended for "popu- 

 lar" use! 



After the unmodified claims of com- 

 pleteness, we are surprised to find that sev- 

 eral western species are left out altogether, 

 such as Baird Sparrow, Plain Titmouse, and 

 Marbled Murrelet. Even whole genera are 

 omitted, namely Catherpes (the Canyon 

 Wrens), Aimophila (Rufous-crowned Spar- 

 row and its relatives), and Gardellina (Red- 

 faced Warbler). 



We are told in the Preface that the "tech- 

 nical" parts of the "Birds of America" (de- 

 scriptions and distributions) are taken from 

 Ridgway's Birds of North and Middle Amer- 

 ica, but modified so as to avoid the use of 

 technical terms. Scrutiny of some of this 

 "technical" matter, thus credited to Ridg- 

 way, shows it to be very much abbreviated 

 and sometimes "adapted" to an extent that 

 we feel sure Ridgway would hardly care to 

 accept responsibility for. In a number of 

 places we meet with most astonishing lapses 

 in geography. For example (vol. n, p. 223), 

 it is stated that "in southern California two 

 local forms of this Jay [California Jay] are 

 found" — "Belding's" and "Xantus's." Here, 

 southern and Lower California are obvious- 

 ly confused. 



I note that the name of "Walter Kenrick 

 Fisher, Ph. D.", of Stanford University, is 

 included in the rather large "Advisory 

 Board" listed at the front of volume i. Yet 

 it cannot for a moment be supposed that 

 this acute ornithologist lent his approval to 

 the character in detail cf the western ornith- 

 ology included in this work. This illustrates 

 another way in which efforts are made by 

 publishers to secure an appearance of scien- 

 tific authenticity for their books. 



I must now, in fairness, say that part of 

 the western material quoted — practically 

 the whole work is a compilation — , notably 

 where specifically credited to Mrs. Bailey 

 and some of that to Finley, is unquestiona- 



bly creditable. Also it is very likely that a 

 far greater proportion of the eastern con- 

 tributions are correct as to fact than of 

 western; for we see there frequent repeti- 

 tions of such names as Chapman, Forbush 

 and Job. 



As to illustrations, it is obvious that ac- 

 cess to the excellent colored plates by Fu- 

 ertes, which originally appeared in Eaton's 

 Birds of New York, was the initial motive cf 

 the present enterprise. There are 106 of 

 these, and also five really very good colored 

 plates of birds' eggs by Thurston. In addi- 

 tion, there is a plethora of half-tones, these 

 including some of the best photographic 

 work of Finley and Bohlman, Job, and A. A. 

 Allen. I fail to see why the editors and 

 publishers could not have stopped here, in- 

 stead of adding a great many more photo- 

 graphs of ghastly mounted birds, and still 

 more reproductions from exceedingly poor 

 drawings. Among the latter, the pictures of 

 Verdin, Wren-tit and Pipit (vol. in, pp. 216, 

 218, 170) are to my mind merely painful 

 caricatures. Still, in the aggregate, the il- 

 lustrations are good and the quantity is 

 amazing. These will attract and hold the 

 attention of the average layman irrespect- 

 ive of the merits, or demerits, of the work 

 otherwise. 



Returning again to the text, I wonder why 

 it is that scientific accuracy cannot more 

 often enter into "popular" works on ornith- 

 ology. Must we accept the apparent rule 

 that "popular", that is, non-technical, ornith- 

 ology cannot at the same time be thorough- 

 ly scientific? My own belief is that, on the 

 contrary, this can be attained, and it should 

 be achieved, by just such sponsors of popu- 

 larized ornithology as the National Associa- 

 tion of Audubon Societies, with the great 

 field of interest this organization has cre- 

 ated and is so fast extending. 



Of course there are ten thousand "audu- 

 bonites" who will accept the present offer- 

 ing as the gospel, to one critical ornitholo- 

 gist who is in a position to detect its serious 

 faults. It may even be averred that inaccu- 

 racies in detail count for nothing as com- 

 pared with the main purpose of securing 

 and holding popular attention and thereby 

 spreading the propagandum of bird-protec- 

 tion and esthetic appreciation of bird-life. 

 Perhaps. If so, my conviction is growing 

 that the term "scientific" must be absolutely 

 withheld from application to literature in 

 which the publishers' aims are primarily to 

 secure popular consumption. Of course it 

 is a feature of added recommendation (and 

 hence of commercial value) if people can be 



