Recent Literature . 
83 
Proper” consists ot a general list of the species, with limited biblio- 
graphical references, and copious biographical and other notes, including 
lists of the specimens obtained, their measurements, color of bill, feet, 
iris, etc., as recorded from the fresh specimen before skinning, with a record 
of nests and the number of eggs found in each. Many of the biographical 
notices are quite extended, and add greatly to our knowledge of the species 
to which they pertain. The Report, as a whole, is quite free from strictly 
technical matter, and hence attractive to general readers and amateurs, as 
well as of great value to specialists. Space forbids particular reference to 
even the more noteworthy portions of this part of the Report, but we can 
scarcely omit calling attention to the account of the Western Kingbird 
( Tyr annus verticalis), in which is detailed the wonderful intelligence and 
affection of several young birds of this species reared as camp pets, and 
which became thoroughly domesticated. 
Although many of the observations and results of Mr. Ridgway’s field- 
work with the Survey of the Fortieth Parallel are not now for the first 
time placed before the public, the Report seems to have lost little of its 
freshness. Although originally prepared, and even stereotyped, as early 
as 1870, it has been so recast that in point of nomenclature it represents 
the author’s later views. — J. A. A. 
Recent Lists of the Birds of Central New York. — In “A 
Directory of the Ornithologists of the United States,” published at Utica, 
N. Y., 1877, by S. L. Willard, Esq., sixteen pages are devoted to “ A List 
of the Birds of Central New York.” The author’s remarks in the way of 
a prelude are thus briefly expressed : “ The following is a complete list of 
the birds of Central New York, with notes on their abundance.” This 
might lead one to expect a valuable contribution to our science, but a 
perusal of the “ List ” proves this supposition to be erroneous. Two hun- 
dred and sixty-seven species are enumerated, and among them are mentioned 
Lophophanes bicolor , Polioptila ccerulea , Protonotaria citrcea (“ occasional in 
Central districts; rare in Northern districts”), Helminthophaga celata, 
“ Seiurus ludovicianus,” Oporornis agilis , Stelgidopteryx serripennis , Vireo 
philadelphicus, Ammodromus caudacutus , Melospiza lincolni, Chondestes 
grammaca , Guiraca ccerulea , Cardinalis virginianus (“ summer resident ”), 
Quiscalus major, Corvus u carnivorus” (“ resident”), Empidonax acadicus , 
Campephilus principalis, Strix pratincola, Catliartes aura, Meleagris gallo- 
pavo var. americana, Tetrao canadensis (“resident in Northern districts”), 
Gupidonia cupido, Lagopus albus , JEgialitis wilsonius, Micropalama himan- 
topus, Ardea egretta, A. candidissima, A. ccerulea, Fuligula collaris, His- 
trionicus torquatus, Ehynchops nigra (“ occasional winter resident ”), and 
many others of equal interest. But the author gives no data whatever 
concerning the dates and localities at which the specimens were procured; 
nor does he, in a single instance, mention an authority in connection with 
the occurrence of a species, thus holding himself responsible for all state- 
