7 
132 THE CONDOR Vol. XXII 
cleaning, and in the systems of recording and storage. Those selected for exhi- 
bition, too, were treated in a way that to the present writer seems well-nigh 
beyond criticism, considering the unavoidable limitations of exhibition space. 
Credit for much of the details of this excellent work belongs, of course, to cer- 
tain of Mr. Daggett’s assistants, those in immediate charge of the work, but it 
was due to the persistent efforts of the Director himself that means became 
available to enable the collections and exhibits to be handled properly, and as 
he wished them to be. It is also due to his inflexible attitude in the matter that 
this priceless accumulation of fossils was kept intact, that invaluable series of 
specimens (‘‘duplicates’’, so-called) were not broken up and scattered, in ex- 
change for miscellaneous objects of doubtful value to the institution. 
In 1918, Occidental College bestowed upon Mr. Daggett the honorary de- 
gree of Doctor of Science, in appreciation of his work at Rancho La Brea. 
While he did not himself publish anything relating to this deposit, he was un- 
tiring in his care that the material should be available for those who were 
studying it, and that it should be preserved as they would have it done; it 
was fitting that his services in these regards should be recognized as they were 
by a university situated in the community where he was employed. His co-op- 
eration with those actively engaged in the study of these fossils has been fur- 
ther recognized by the naming of certain species in his honor. Morphnus dag- 
getti, a peculiar, long-legged eagle of the Rancho La Brea deposit, was so desig- 
nated by L. H. Miller in The Condor (vol. 17, 1915, pp. 179-181). A puma, 
Felis daggetti, was described by J. C. Merriam (Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol., vol. 
10, 1918, pp. 535-537), with the statement that: ‘‘This species is named in honor 
of my friend and colleague, Mr. Frank S. Daggett, Director of the Museum of 
History, Science and Art, of Los Angeles, whose interest and co-operation in 
study of the Rancho La Brea collections have contributed largely to the effect- 
iveness of monographic studies on this fauna now in progress.”’ 
That Mr. Daggett’s work along the lines of ornithology and entomology 
was mainly as a collector was probably because both studies were followed as 
a relaxation, a change from the business pursuits with which his days were 
mostly occupied. His knowledge of both subjects was accurate and compre- 
hensive, but he published little of a technical nature. It is to be noted in his 
ornithological bibliography that a large proportion of the writings are of the 
nature of suggestions or criticism, and they are of a character that bespeaks 
a high degree of acumen and foresight. His communication on the ‘‘ Importance 
of Accuracy in Lists’’ (1899, p. 115) is an expression of deeply felt convic- 
tions, and a little later his review of Jones and Dawson’s ‘‘A Summer Recon- 
noissance in the West ’’ (1901, pp. 53-54) is a re-iteration of the same theme. 
There is no doubt that Mr. Daggett’s repeated insistence on the need of care 
and accuracy in ornithological work had a marked effect, and a very whole- 
some one, upon his younger associates, who were at that time ‘‘discovering’’ 
many nm rmalliae, 
His communication ‘‘Concerning the Active Membership of the A. O. U.’’ — 
(1900, pp. 68-69), was not a criticism of carping and pointless character, such 
as had been directed toward that organization from other quarters, but a rea- 
sonable presentation of facts, suggesting desirable changes and in a manner 
free from offense. It is noteworthy that the publication of these views fore- 
shadowed the radical changes made in the by-laws of the American Ornitholo- 
