84 
Recent Literature. 
ments made, a much graver responsibility than our young friend imagined 
when he undertook the task. Being somewhat familiar with the region 
to which this list pertains, I was requested to review it for the Bulletin, 
which circumstance led me to make inquiries of its author concerning 
about seventy of the species therein mentioned. Of this number he had 
the candor to admit that about thirty were included upon no grounds 
whatever, while some twenty more were taken from Dekay (and some of 
these were not known by DeKay, according to his own statements, to 
occur at all in New York State, and nearly all the others were known to 
him only from the vicinity of the coast, — far beyond the limits of “ Cen- 
tral New York ”). Quite a number of others rest on the strength of state- 
ments made by wholly unreliable boys, who thought they had “ seen ” the 
bird in question ! On the other hand, some few species were inserted on 
the authority of perfectly reliable collectors (Romeyn B. Hough of Low- 
ville,. and Fred. J. Davis of Utica) ; but since the author did not see tit to 
mention authorities, it is impossible to discriminate between truth and 
error, and he must be held responsible for the whole. Above are the facts; 
I refrain from comment. It is due the author, however, to state that the 
“ List ” was prepared in great haste while the “ Directory ” (in which it ap- 
pears) was passing through the press. He is now but “too well aware of 
its imperfections,” and when next he favors us with a contribution it will, 
no doubt, be worthy of a far different criticism from that which it has 
been my duty to give in this instance. 
A word about local lists in general : There is, I fear, among our 
younger and less experienced collectors a strong and lamentably conta- 
gious tendency to rush into print before having become sufficiently famil- 
iar with the habits, distribution, and relative abundance of our birds, to 
be capable of preparing a creditable paper. Thus it is that very truthful 
and well-meaning people are sometimes led to display their ignorance in a 
most unnecessary and unfortunate manner. And it sometimes happens 
that less conscientious observers, who have not yet learned the impor- 
tance of substantiating their own statements, or failing to recognize the 
value of exact data, so far forget themselves as to yield to the temptation 
of swelling their lists by the addition of species concerning which they 
know absolutely nothing. Mistakes are always liable to occur in human 
productions, and are to be expected — yes, may even be looked for, per- 
haps, with no inconsiderable degree of confidence — in works pertaining to 
this particular line of research ; therefore, when found, they should be 
corrected in a spirit of scientific charity and lenient good-will. But when 
a man sits down, and in cold blood writes a list of birds on the authority 
of his own fertile imagination, he must expect to take the consequences. 
“Bad lists,” writes Mr. J. A. Allen, “ are, of course, far worse than none at 
all, and if incompetent aspirants to fame in this direction will make such 
ventures, it is best, I think, not only for science* but for them personally 
to show them that such things are not to be done with impunity.” 
