Jan., 1922 FROM FIELD AND STUDY jaf 
with an oar, and on examination its plumage was found to be saturated with crude oil, 
particularly on the breast and wings. No injuries were in evidence and its plight was 
apparently due entirely to the oil. 
Numerous other Murres were noted at no great distances, all more or less cov- 
ered with the oil, which covered the suriace of the water from a mere film to a heavy 
scum. The men who were patrolling the beaches for bodies of the wreck victims re- 
ported that there were many of “the same kind of birds’ (Murres) dead and dying on 
the beaches, and frequently the searchers were startled by a bird still alive suddenly 
struggling and flopping about at their feet. Also, many gulls were observed to have 
stained breasts, but none were seen to be helpless. On October 30, when about 120 
miles south of the scene of the disaster (near Cape Fanshaw), on a passenger steamer, 
the writer observed one gull with oil-stained. breast join the ship for a distance. On 
January 1, 1919, at Wrangell, nearly two hundred miles south of the wreck, the writer 
observed a Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) walking about the streets, with a 
spot of discoloration about four inches in diameter on breast and sides that bore every 
evidence of being crude oil stain and quite possibly came from the wreck to the north in 
the preceding October. 
The extent of the losses among the bird population due to this accident can not 
even be approximated, but it must have been considerable, as the wreck occurred a 
short distance north of waters much frequented by Murres, and prevailing winds and 
tides drove the oil southward for many miles. The twenty-three miles under observa- 
tion on October 28 were from twenty-two to forty-five miles from the scene of the wreck 
with considerable shoreline intervening, so there is a good reason to believe that the 
fatalities to the birds that came under observation of the writer’s party were but a small 
percentage of the total—EHrnNrst P. WaLKErR, Phoenix, Arizona, March 7, 1920. 
Number of Birds Described as New from California.—The undersigned has pre- 
pared a manuscript list of all the birds described from California. Species have been 
excluded where the type in all probability did not come from within the confines of the 
present state of California. Even so, it is found that 205 new names have been proposed 
for birds from California in the strict sense. But 45 of these specific or subspecific 
names have subsequently proven to be ill founded; in other words they are now con- 
sidered as synonyms. Therefore 160 valid forms out of the total of 576 at this moment 
credited to the state list have been described from California—about 28 percent. 
Furthermore, it is found that 51 different persons have participated in this sort 
of ornithological activity. As to responsibility of authors for new names: Grinnell has 
proposed 38, of which 6 are synonyms; Ridgway 28, with 8 synonyms; Oberholser 13, 
with 4 synonyms; Cassin 13, with one synonym; Vigors 11, with 4 synonyms; Baird 8, 
with 3 synonyms; Swarth 6, with no synonyms; Lawrence 5, with 1 synonym; Gambel 
5, with 1 synonym; McGregor 5, with 1 synonym; etc. The rest of the 51 authors have 
named four or fewer real or supposed new forms. 
It might be expected that the earlier describers, working at a time when ‘most 
everything was new” and when only “full species” were recognized, would have made 
the best “score”, that is, the highest ratio of valid names to total names proposed. How- 
ever, note that Vigors (1839) made but 63 percent, the lowest ratio among those who 
have proposed more than ten new names. The best score among those who have 
launched ten names or more was made by Cassin, 91 percent. A score of 100 percent 
is to be credited to Xantus, Henshaw, C. H. Townsend, Mearns, and Swarth, among 
those who have proposed from 3 to 6 new names. Is it to be inferred that the larger 
the number of names launched the greater the chances of slipping up? 
There are numerous factors which enter into the game of species naming, upon 
which success will depend. Some of these factors are: availability of comparative ma- 
terial, knowledge of the literature, degree of development of the geographic sense, 
knowledge of plumages and of the meanings of variations, and discriminative acumen. 
While some of these may in more or less degree be matters of luck, yet in the long run 
personal qualifications like industry, concentrativeness and caution will figure largely. 
In systematics it is woefully easy, but forever a discredit, to launch synonyms. There is 
far less excuse for it now, with abundance of material and well indexed literature, than 
