Recent Literature. 
167 
Mexican Boundary ; inclusive of Lower California ; exclusive of Green- 
land.” This is, therefore, not the first time that Lower California has 
been included in a catalogue of North American birds. While agreeing 
most fully with Mr. Ridgway in all that he says respecting the ornitholog- 
ical affinities of these outlying appendages as well as of a large part of 
Mexico, we still greatly regret that the southern boundary of the United 
States has not been uniformly adhered to as the southern limit of North 
America in our check lists and catalogues of North American birds. 
Since for convenience’s sake an arbitrary line must be selected, at least 
for much time to come, it seems best for purposes of statistical and 
historical comparisons to choose the one ostensibly recognized in the 
earlier catalogues. 
A few words further in respect to the scope of the new catalogue. Mr 
Ridgway tells us that he is “ constrained, by important and carefully con- 
sidered circumstances, to retain in the list some seven or eight species of 
Mexican birds treated by Professor Baird in volume ix, Pacific Railroad 
Reports (* Birds of North America’), and included in the Catalogue of 
1859. They were all obtained just across the Rio Grande, and therefore it 
may be deemed perfectly safe to assume that their occasional occurrence 
on our side of the river is certain, and their capture there merely a ques- 
tion of time. Ten species published by J. P. Giraud as having been obtained 
in Texas, but which have not been subsequently recorded from within 
our limits, are also included, there being every probability of their oc- 
currence there, while Mr. Giraud strenuously maintained, to the day of 
his death, that they were really collected in that State.” 
Mr. Ridgway further says : “Neither are we prepared to relinquish cer- 
tain Audubonian species which at present are known only from the works 
of their describer {e. g., Regulus cuvieri, Perissoglossa? carbonata , Den- 
droecaf montana [described and figured originally by Wilson] and Myio- 
dioctesf minutus ), as well as two well-known species given by Audubon on 
his own authority ( Ckrysomitris ‘magellanica' = C. notata and Eudoc- 
imus ruber), having full confidence, as we do, in his veracity.” After 
alluding to three instances in which Audubon was “ evidently im- 
posed upon,” Mr. Ridgway continues: “But the birds which we have 
called special attention to above are all so clearly described and accurately 
figured that we must either regard them as valid species or, as the only 
alternative, view them as mainly the creation of Audubon’s brain and 
pencil. To do the latter, however, on the purely negative ground that no 
one else has met with them, seems to us not only a gross injustice to his 
memory, but, laying aside personal considerations altogether, also a most 
insecure position to take. The type of Emberiza [SpizaJ townsendi , de- 
scribed by Audubon forty-six years ago, remains unique to this day ; 
but since it fortunately exists in an excellent state of preservation, we 
have, in this case at least, positive evidence of Audubon’s good faith. 
The species may now be extinct, and so may ‘Cuvier’s Kinglet,’ the ‘ Car- 
bonated’ and ‘Blue Mountain Warblers,’ and the ‘ Small-headed Fly- 
catcher’ ; but we have very strong faith that the ‘lost’ species will even 
