70 : THE CONDOR 
srsproomnrmensnncames agen 
% ee ae ee — 
. } 
{ 
ign a4: 
ARETAS A. SAUNDERS 
Mr. Saunders’ “Distributional List of the 
Birds of Montana” was issued by the Cooper 
Ornithological Club under date of February 
1, 1921, as no. 14 of the Pacific Coast Avi- 
fauna series. The author was for some 
years connected with the United States For- 
estry Service in Montana, and he was also 
for a time at the University of Montana Bio- 
logical Station at Flathead Lake. His ac- 
count of the birds of Montana _ consists 
largely of his own first-hand observations, 
but are supplemented by the published writ- 
ings of other ornithologists. Three hundred 
and thirty-two species are listed as native 
to the state, as well as several others that 
have been introduced. The “List” is mainly 
concerned with the manner of occurrence of 
the various species, in just what part of the 
state they are found, and at what season 
of the year; but there are also extensive 
notes on migration, and descriptive accounts 
of the nesting of most of the birds. A num- 
ber of half-tones figure many of the species, 
their nests and eggs, and also illustrate the 
character of the country in the life zones 
and faunal areas that are discussed. 
Mr. J. A. Munro, of Okanagan Landing, 
British Columbia, has recently been appoint- 
ed chief officer in charge of the enforcement 
of the Migratory Bird Convention Act in the 
western provinces of Canada. Mr. Munro’s 
years of study of the avifauna of his region 
have rendered him peculiarly fitted to un- 
Vol. XXIII 
derstand the problems involved in his new 
position. It will be gratifying to the ornith- 
ologists of the country to learn of this most 
appropriate appointment. 
COMMUNICATION 
A PLEA FOR PROFESSIONAL COURTESY 
Some time ago, my studies in a certain 
field led to a discovery quite unexpected to 
me and of a more or less surprising nature 
to other men of similar interests. An ac- 
count of the facts and a statement of con- 
clusions was written for publication, but the 
manuscript was submitted to another inves- 
tigator to whom I was personally a stranger. 
He examined the manuscript and returned it 
with helpful criticism and a most cordial 
expression of interest and of willingness to 
render aid in furtherance of the cause—a 
willingness which he has since repeatedly 
proven genuine. His assistance was publicly 
acknowledged with great pleasure on my 
part, a cordial relation between two fellow 
workers was established, and the scientific 
public was spared any controversy in print. 
A few months ago I received a most cour- 
teous and friendly letter from an older and 
better known scientist offering suggestions 
on a brief note published over my signa- 
ture. Instead of writing to me he might 
have published his criticism and done so in 
less friendly terms without violating the 
law of precedent. He took the more cour- 
teous way and spared the public a possible 
controversy. : 
Why are not all scientists as large as 
these two men? Why is there not among 
scientists that fraternal bond that exists 
among reputable physicians and is called 
professional courtesy? Why can not the 
reviewer present an honest difference of 
opinion and not impugn the motives or 
deride the conclusions of one who happens 
not to agree with him? Why can not the re- 
viewed author be less sensitive or less in- 
flammable, and measurably profit thereby? 
Or, failing in either of these points, would 
not our over-worked editors be justified in 
throwing out manuscripts that are contro- 
versial until the parties concerned had 
reached some agreement (to disagree, per- 
haps)? 
If authors would settle their disputes be- 
tween themselves and give us in our jour- 
nals either the benefit of their conclusions 
or an amicable statement of points of di- 
vergence, we would feel that the scientific 
fraternity was reaping the benefit of co- 
operation rather than the whirlwind of dis- 
sention. May we not get together outside 
