July, 1918 



PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 



141 



Kalmbach has underestimated the economic 

 significance of this corvine trait. The re- 

 viewer was born and raised in Maryland, 

 which is a veritable crow paradise, and he 

 had abundant opportunity of observing the 

 havoc wrought by crows during the nesting- 

 season. Lack of space precludes an extend- 

 ed account of this or other interesting 

 points, so suffice it to say that the destruc- 

 tion of only a few insectivorous birds by a 

 crow, means that in order to be beneficial, 

 his crowship would have to spend the bal- 

 ance of his life in pursuing noxious insects! 

 Valuable tables are given, and an inter- 

 esting feature is a chart showing the per- 

 centages of the different classes of foods 

 consumed during all months. Specifically 

 distinct items to the number of 656 have 

 been discovered on the crow's menu, which 

 is rather large even for such an omnivorous 

 appetite. In fact, it is well-nigh impossible 

 to recall anything biological to which the 

 crow is not partial. The most serious of- 

 fense of which the black robber is guilty, 

 is the destruction of great quantities of 

 corn, especially just after planting, and this 

 grain forms the principle single item of food, 

 amounting to 65 per cent of the stomach 

 contents during December. Other grains are 

 eaten in smaller amounts; and lesser depre- 

 dations, in the way of destruction of fruit 

 and vegetables, poultry, beneficial insects, 

 reptiles, and even small pigs and lambs, are 

 listed. Against this is the consumption of 

 harmful insects (including many grass- 

 hoppers), weed seeds, some small mam- 

 mals, and carrion, in the control of 

 which last the crow is no mean rival of 

 the buzzards. Mr. Kalmbach thinks that the 

 harm which the crow does is almost coun- 

 terbalanced by its good traits, but this seems 

 still to be an open question, and one which 

 will be vigorously argued by the farmer 

 who has lost an entire crop of melons or a 

 planting of corn in a short time. Whether 

 we catalogue him as an undesirable or not, 

 the crow is here to stay, for no destructive 

 agency yet devised by man is capable of re- 

 moving him, and the long black ribbon of 

 his followers, from an eastern winter sky. — 

 A. B. Howell. 



Included in the "Summary Report of the 

 Geological Survey, Department of Mixes, 

 for the Calendar Year 1916" [Ottawa, Can- 

 ada, 1917] there are several "Divisional Re- 

 ports" treating of collections of birds, by P. 

 A. Taverner or R. M. Anderson. Those by 

 the first mentioned author pertain to collec- 

 tions made near Barkley Sound, Vancouver 

 Island, in midwinter (pp. 355-357), at main- 

 land points in British Columbia during the 

 summer months (pp. 359-368), and in Mani- 

 toba (pp. 371-374). The Barkley Sound list 

 is of especial interest from the time of year 

 at which the collection was made, and 

 doubtless the mainland reports also contain 

 records of value, but the feature of the three 



papers that calls for special comment is the 

 rather startling innovation in style intro- 

 duced by the author. 



Subspecies are ignored in all the head- 

 ings. The scientific name of the species is 

 given in binomial form, and the English 

 name is that applied to the whole specific 

 group or else to the eastern race. Thus, al- 

 though the Cassin Vireo is the form of that 

 particular species occurring in British Co- 

 lumbia, it is entered as "Solitary Vireo, 

 Lanivireo solitarius." As, in the present 

 state of our knowledge of the ornithology of 

 the northwest, the value of such a report as 

 this one lies largely in the exact subspecific 

 determination of the various forms at the 

 points at which specimens are taken, the 

 procedure here followed seems most decid- 

 edly a move in the wrong direction. In 

 nearly every instance the author's com- 

 ments upon the specimens examined treat 

 of the racial peculiarities exhibited, and in 

 the many cases where he has evidently 

 made up his mind as to the subspecies rep- 

 resented there seems to be no good reason 

 why the proper subspecific name should not 

 be placed plainly as a heading. There is no 

 evident gain in the procedure he has fol- 

 lowed, but there is, on the contrary, 

 throughout all three reports, an atmosphere 

 of vagueness and uncertainty that detracts 

 greatly from their value. Certainly there 

 are many "records'' incorporated therein 

 that can be used by no one else, at least in 

 anv study of geographical distribution, 

 without re-examination of the specimens 

 listed. 



The author seems to be rather pessimistic- 

 ally inclined towards most western subspe- 

 cies, and while no one could criticize him 

 on that score were his objections clearly 

 stated and his evidence in orderly array, 

 the vague, and in a general way, depreca- 

 tory remarks directed against many sub- 

 species now quite universally recognized by 

 other bird students, are of such unconvinc- 

 ing character that for the most part they 

 were better left unsaid until they could be 

 more logically and strongly presented. They 

 are the "dribbling protests" to which Os- 

 good (Coxdor, xi, 1909, 107) once rightly 

 took exception. 



As an example in point, the treatment ac- 

 corded the Western Goshawk may be cited. 

 It is entered as "Goshawk, Astur atricapil- 

 lus", wfth the following comment: "The 

 fineness of the breast vermiculations seems 

 to be more an indication of age than geog- 

 raphy; younger birds being more coarsely 

 marked than old ones." Now this may be 

 very true, and it is, of course, a point worthy 

 of careful consideration; but one would like 

 to see some supporting evidence for the con- 

 clusion reached. It is an easy matter to 

 make a selection of specimens representing 

 various steps between two extremes, but it 

 does not necessarily follow that any one in- 



