Nov., 1919 FROM FIELD AND STUDY 239 
in the herbage on the bottom of a dried up pond, from which the water had long 
since gone. This was about a quarter of a mile from water of any kind. A careful 
search in different directions failed to reveal any more birds of this species, although 
there was a very extensive migration of land birds as well as water birds. In the stom- 
ach of one was the assenibled remains of a good sized grasshopper, carefully dismem- 
bered, and I was surprised to find that even the coarse, prickly hind legs had been eaten 
whole. 
On the same day I walked up to within twenty feet of a flock of seven Pectoral 
Sandpipers (Pisobia maculata), an interesting bird on the Pacific coast, and watched 
them for ten minutes. They did not show the slightest fear, feeding up to within a few 
feet. 
Another interesting specimen taken was an adult female Black Pigeon Hawk 
(Falco columbarius suckleyi), which completed my bag of three birds for the day.—J. 
Hooper Bow Les, Tacoma, Washington, September 11, 1919. 
One Reason for Eliminating Subspecies.—In the recent discussion in the CoNpbor 
on the multiplication of subspecies no one has put forward a reason against them quite 
so final as that quoted by Prof. F. W. Oliver in his life of Arthur Henfrey (Vakers of 
British Botany). Of this great exponent of the ‘New Botany’ Prof. Oliver says (p. 201): 
“He more than once expresses the opinion that there was too great a tendency to lump 
species in the handbooks to the Flora, and he urged on the occasion of the preparation 
of the third edition of the London Catalogue of British Plants that many more forms 
should find recognition. The editors of the catalogue however successfully opposed the 
suggestion on the ingenious grounds that it would raise the weight for postage beyond 
the limits of a blue (twopenny) stamp.”—J.H. FLremine, Toronto, Ontario, September 4, 
1919. 
A Tradition Nearly Broken.—The discovery was made on the fourth of July, 1919. 
The writer in company with B. P. Carpenter and friends was searching for oological 
treasure on a small rocky island of the Coronados group off the coast of Lower Califor- 
nia. 
A number of petrel nests had been unearthed, each of which contained the tradi- 
tional single egg or young. But in nearly every colony of nesting birds one finds some- 
thing unusual and this community proved to be no exception. An egg of the Socorro 
Petrel (Oceanodroma socorroensis) was removed from beneath the parent bird which 
was of unusual dimensions, measuring 1.50x1.12 inches, whereas a normal egg measures 
but 1.10x.85 inches. Upon blowing the specimen it proved to be fresh, and contained two 
yolks. Did not this bird have a set of two eggs started, and did not nature rather than 
have so time honored a custom broken provide but the one shell?—N. K. CARPENTER. 
Hoorrr Bow.es, Tacoma, Washington, September 11, 1919. 
Some Southern Records of the Horned Puffin.—Judging by the take of specimens 
the Horned Puffin (Fratercula corniculata) has been but a rare visitant along our coast. 
That this species may at certain times occur in considerable numbers appears to be 
evidenced by the note in the May-June Conpor (p. 128) by Franklin J. Smith, and by the 
following additional records. 
Mr. Wm. C. Bohrmann of San Francisco recently presented to the writer a splen- 
did photograph of a Horned Puffin taken at Mussel Rock, March 2, 1919. The bird was 
found on the ocean beach still alive, but unable to fly. Quoting from a letter: “I carried 
this bird in my pocket for a mile or so toward the Cliff House. Had figured that some 
night-prowling raccoon would get him if I left him on the beach. But he looked so mis- 
erably unhappy that I finally decided to give him his small chance for life, and I let 
him go.” 
Richard Hocking has furnished material for the following note: Mrs. A. S. Allen 
and Richard Hocking of Berkeley went to Montara Beach on May 24, 1919, to look for 
some dead birds seen in the same place a week before. Here were found eight Tufted Puf- 
