28 THE CONDOR Vol. XXII 
Added to this, the whole family seems to suffer from ‘‘nerves’’ to an extent 
not found in any other class of birds; the little chaps that trot around your feet 
one day, are quite unapproachable the next, and all this means a lot of patience 
in the man who would study them. To the bird observer who does not collect, 
their identification is attended with many difficulties. Even with species that 
I am very familiar with I find myself making frequent mistakes after a good 
observation of the bird through an eight-power glass. Size is the’most deceptive 
thing, especially on a smooth beach or mudflat; several times I have been quite 
positive of the identity of one of the Yellow-legs only to find on taking the bird 
that it was the other species. Similarities that are patent in the cabinet, are 
not nearly as evident in the field, and many peculiarities of pattern that are 
conspicuous in life, disappear when the bird is in the hand. 
So, however averse one is to taking life, the only positive record in most 
cases entails the taking of the bird. The following incident will illustrate how 
easy it is to make errors. 
A few years ago, one day in early July, I saw, on the shore of a little pond 
in Okanagan, an adult Least Sandpiper closely followed by a downy young a 
few days old. The actual parent of this was making a small demonstration on 
the opposite shore a hundred yards away. Yet how easily this might have been 
taken for a conclusive record of the breeding of the Least Sandpiper in this 
locality. 
In my own observations I: have always been handicapped by not being in a 
really good locality, or else too far away from the best grounds. To get good 
results one should almost live on the ground. The ideal place for rare records is 
not the large extent of mud flats or shore, but a limited area presenting good 
feed possibilities on an otherwise unsuitable stretch of coast-line. Such a place 
ean be intensively worked. 
Here in Okanagan the conditions are not at all favorable, being limited to 
a few hundred yards of too-clean shore, and some alkaline ponds at about 1000 
feet higher elevation. Yet this district has yielded some twenty-four species, 
some of which have not been taken in any of the states west of the Rocky Moun- 
tains. The following list is intended to be considered in conjunction with Mr. 
Bowles’ excellent list of the Washington Limicolae. 
I have added a synopsis of the colors of the bills and feet in fresh speci- 
mens, collected from the labels of the skins in my collection. This is intended 
to supplement those given in ‘‘The Game Birds of California’’, the authors of 
which have had to go back as far as Audubon for their information in many 
cases, and in some cases Audubon has evidently guessed at the colors from the 
dried specimens. The color of the iris is not added except in a few instances, 
this being almost invariably very dark brown. : 
1. Phalaropus fulicarius. Red Phalarope. A few coastwise records. 
2. Lobipes lobatus. Northern Phalarope. Common in the fall and regular mi- 
grant. Scarcer in the spring. First fall records, adults, July 15; young, August 8. Bill 
black; feet gray, livid bluish on inner surface, webs cream color. 
3. Steganopus tricolor. Wilson Phalarope. Two sight records only. 
4. Recurvirostra americana. Avocet. A small flock at Okanagan Landing April 
28, 1908. Five taken. Iris brown; bill black; feet pale leaden blue. 
5. Gallinago delicata. Wilson Snipe. Common and breeding throughout the Pro- 
vince in suitable localities. A few winter even in the cold interior. 
6. Macrorhamphus griseus scolopaceus. Long-billed Dowitcher. Common fall 
migrant at the coast; scarce in the interior. Rare in spring. Some summer adults have 
