The ‘Water Birds of North America’— A Few Corrections.— The excel- 
lent and exhaustive work on the ‘Water Birds of North America, lately 
issued by the Agassiz Museum of Comparative Zoology, is a model 
treatise as far as the labors of the authors whose names appear on the title- 
page could make it perfect; and for errors in quotations from others, 
chiefly compiled by the late Dr. Brewer, neither he. Professor Baird, nor 
Mr. Ridgway can be held responsible. 
It is, however, an unfortunate circumstance that while so many are indi- 
rectly made contributors, they should have been unable to amend their 
notes when printed, as there is always new information accumulating, 
which more or less alters previous knowledge, especially in regard to 
habits of birds. It was probably impracticable to supply proof-sheets to 
all the naturalists quoted and still living while the printing was being 
done. In consequence, a large number of amendments and additions 
must remain for publication in other ways, the editors not having seen fie. 
to add an appendix, as done with the three volumes of ‘Land Birds.’ The 
following corrections will be of interest, and relate chiefly to quotations 
from my° own writings. I do not now undertake to give many additional 
observations. 
In volume I, page 75, line 2, ‘ tule ’ should be printed tule, it being the 
Spanish or Mexican name of the giant rush, Scirpus lacustris, not prop- 
erly speaking a “long grass.” In Utah it is spelled Tooele, the lake thus 
named being within the range of Spanish travel, but should be pro- 
nounced Too-ly, in two syllables. 
Page 1 15, line 3, for ‘sport’ read spout. 
Page 116, line 10. H. niger breeds as far south as Santa Baibaia 
Island. See quotation on next page, line 8. 
Page 1 17, line 22 from bottom, for ‘Malashka’ read Unalaska. 
Page 146, line 19 from bottom, for ‘California’ read Caledonia. 
p a <r e 233, near middle, Dr. Brewer overlooked my article in Proc. Cal. 
Acad! Nat. Sc., IV, 3, 1S6S, where I stated this species to be “not rare at 
San Francisco Bay in winter.” The same article would have furnished 
other facts on 45 species of birds, chiefly additional to what he did quote. 
p a <re 298, line 12, for ‘western,’ read eastern. 
Page 320, line 6. The young birds I caught were probably Limosa 
fedoa (p. 255). which are described as very similar to the young ot A umc- 
nius when not half grown. It is my recollection, however, that old Cur- 
lews were shot also, possibly barren birds. On p. 312 he also quotes my 
notice of N. longirostris in the same locality, but no other collector has 
found it breeding there. 
'886. J Recent Literature. 12^ 
Page 358, line 18. My notes are not correctly quoted. The bird was 
hid in a hole or cave in the rock, and when alarmed flew out alighting on 
San Francisco Bay. 
Volume II, page 7. Nettion crecca. Also found not rarelv in Cali- 
fornia. I gave it in the 'Additions,' etc., in Proc. Cal. Acad. Nat. Sci. 
t868. 
Page 37. The Ducks shot by Dr. Heermann in summer in California, 
were more probably females of some other kind than of Marecu ameri- 
cium, as the latter has not been found breeding in the United States. 
Page 38, line 5 from bottom, for -Kansas’ read Texas. 
Page 39. line 10 from bottom, for • 1.35’ read 2.35. 
Page 51, near middle and elsewhere, for ‘Conalitos’ read Corralitos. 
Page 87. line 2t, for ‘west’ read coast. 
Page 11S, line 2, for ‘smaller’ read summer. 
Page 143. The Brown Pelican of the West Coast was fully described 
by me as a common summer bird as far north as Shoalwater Bay, Lat. 47 0 , 
in P. R. R. Rep’t. XII, iii, 1839, but San Francisco is given here as the 
northern limit, Dr. Brewer not quoting the Report, as in several instances. 
The adult plumage obtained by me at San Diego does not differ from that 
ot Florida birds, but the colors of bill, pouch, etc. differed from both the 
Florida and Lower California birds, being intermediate, and quite variable. 
Page 147 The notes on Phalacrocorax carbo do not agree with the 
distribution given on p. 145. Nuttall gives it as a bird of the Northwest 
Coast. 
Page 288. In mv 'Additions to the Fauna of California’ in 1868, not 
quoted. I mentioned Sterna clcgaus as obtained in San Francisco Bay. 
Page 336. I published a notice of the occurrence of this bird in San 
Francisco Bay (Proc. Cal. Acad. Sc. V, 415, 1875). 
Page 363, line 8. for ‘gong’ read gon v. In line 12 is a misquotation, 
apparently contradicting the previous part of the sentence. The birds 
seen by me were near shore. 
Page 371, line 6 from bottom, for ‘Tagers’ read Yagers (from the Ger- 
man Jager. a hunter). 
Page 390. A blackish species, agreeing closely with P. stricklandi , is 
found on the California coast in companv with P. creatopus , and I sup- 
posed it to be the same bird in young plumage, just as the, former is sup- 
posed by some to be the younger P. major. The only one I obtained was 
not sent to Washington, therefore is not referred to. and I saw no reason 
to consider it new. The wing was 12^ inches long (not 12). thus a little 
larger than in stricklandi , just as that of creatopus was i inch longer 
than in major. The four named species should probably be reduced to 
one, and many similar combinations of species would be advantageous to 
the study of the water-birds. 
Page 41 1. Mr. W. O. Emerson, of Haywards, obtained specimens this 
year at the Farallone Islands, California, of the size of C. homoc/iroa, but 
in plumage approaching C. melanin. 
Page 424, line 18 from bottom, for 'Pueblo’ read Pablo. 
