Recent Literature. 
2 4 3 
selves diagnostic of the species, it is well enough to be content with a good 
sight at the birds and a careful record of the position and surroundings. 
Even if an occasional mistake be made in this waj there is little harm done. 
But he who would chronicle the occurrence of a rare nest in a region where 
the bird is not known to breed, must see to it that his chain of evidence is 
absolutely complete. And no such evidence can be complete without the 
capture and proper identification of at least one of the parent birds. Cir- 
cumstances, it is true, will sometimes render such an identification impos- 
sible, despite the utmost efforts on the part of the collector. A bird may be 
shot at and missed, or lost among the vegetation after it has fallen. In 
cases of this kind the observer’s impressions are always entitled to atten- 
tion, provided the facts on which they are based are frankly and fully given. 
The record then stands open to the scrutiny of all and can be judged on its 
merits, while its acceptance or rejection will depend largely on the repu- 
tation which the writer bears for accuracy and experience in such matters. 
The author who disregards these cardinal principles must of necessity defy 
the opinions of those who accept them, and he should expect his work to be 
judged accordingly. 
But the most conspicuous act of daring remains to be mentioned. On 
page 290 of the “Land and Game Birds” the author describes a species 
of Empidonax — a new genus even was suggested, “to be called Muscac- 
cipiter ,” basing his diagnosis on a bird which he saw flying about in the 
shrubbery of his father's place near Boston. 
This last example needs no comment. We trust it is one of the things 
that Mr. Minot would now “gladly alter”: but it stands prominent 
among the fruits of that “ system of work” which he sees “ no reason to 
change” and is perhaps no more than an extreme example of the opera- 
glass method of identification. If such work is to be recognized — and 
toleration is in some sense recognition — the gun may indeed be dis- 
pensed with and rare nests and new birds described ad libitum without 
the shedding of more blood. But if ornithology is to continue to hold a 
place among the sciences the leaders must see to it that such dangerous 
heresy is promptly discountenanced. The quotation from Dr. Coues in 
the foot-note to Mr. Minot’s communication has absolutely no bearing, 
either direct or indirect, on the points hei'e at issue. It originally appears 
in connection with some general remarks affecting the philosophic compo- 
sition of faunae and the methods followed in the preparation of certain lists 
of New England birds. Dr. Coues’s published sentiments regarding the 
proper identification of important specimens are too well known to need 
repetition, but any one who wishes to satisfy himself on this point will 
find some pertinent remarks on page 101 of “ Field Ornithology ” and on 
page 33 of “New England Bird Life.” 
In conclusion I beg to assure Mr. Minot that the above remarks are 
prompted by no ill-feeling and — excepting in so far as an author is to 
be held responsible for his printed utterances — are intended to have no 
personal application. Nor would I be understood as wholly condemning 
the “ Land and Game Birds of New England.” On the contrary, leaving 
