Mar., 1911 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
79 
favorable inomeiit. This will he a personal 
matter and we’ll get to it all in gooil time. 
After that you will be a booster. All your 
friends know that yon are interested in birds. 
May they not also know that you are interested 
in the success of the California bird-book? We 
are going to succeed, of course; but success 
will mean so much more to us if we can all 
share it. Thank yon. 
W. Leon Dawson 
Safita Barbara, F'ebruary 20, 1911. 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
Miller on Fossil Birds of California 
AND Oregon. — Mr. Loye Holmes Miller is con- 
tinuing his studies upon prehistoric birds, re- 
mainsof which are becoming-available in remark- 
able (luaiitity through the work of the University 
of California department of Paleontology under 
the direction of Dr. John C. IMerriam. Since 
our last notice of IMiller’s work (Condor XII, 
January 1910, p. 48) three more papers have ap- 
peared. In each case the well-chosen title 
gives a clear idea of the contents of the paper. 
The first article deals with the “Wading 
Birds from the Oiiarternary Asphalt Beds of 
Rancho la Brea” '(Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. V, 
Augusts, 1910, pp. 4d9-448, figs. 1-8). Con- 
trary to expectation wading birds are found to 
be but poorl)’ represented in the Rancho la 
Brea beds, located near Los Angeles. But five 
species have so far been found, and of these 
only seventeen indiviiluals are represented. 
Fourteen of these individuals are referred to 
the subfamily Ciconiinae , which is at present 
foreign to the region. Ciconia maltha, not 
distantly related to the White Stork of the Old 
World, is described as new. The other mem- 
ber of the subfamily is the Jabiru (Jabiru niyc- 
teria) . Of the cranes ((Iruidae) both Grus 
canadensis, and a newly describeil species re- 
lated to it, Gras minor, were found; and of the 
herons (Ardeidae) only Ardea herodias 
In the next paper Miller treats of “the Con- 
dor-like Vultures of Rancho la Brea” (Univ. 
Calif. Publ. Geol. VI, November 28, 1910, pp. 
1-19, figs. 1 a and 1 b to 5 a and 5 b). The 
abundance of the remains of these huge scav- 
enging birds is accounted for by the author on 
the ground that the Oiiarternary mammalian 
fauna in this region was abundant, remains of 
both herbivorous and carnivorous species of 
large size being numerous in the same beils. 
The asphalt furnished a trap for these beasts, 
and the carcasses of these in turn lured the 
vultures to their doom. The keen senses of 
the birds, both of sight and of smell, were 
doubtless effective at great distances, and thus 
toll was taken from a large area. The rela- 
tively large number of vulturine representa- 
tives might thus be in part explained. Only 
one of the four species to which the material is 
referred exists at the present time; this is the 
California Condor {Gymnogyps californianus) , 
represented b}' a series of fourteen fossil tarsi. 
Sarcorhamphiis clarki is described as new and 
most nearly related to the Andean Condor. 
Quite different from either of the above are 
Cathartornis gracilis and Pleistogyps rex, both 
genus and species being newly named in each 
case. These are of larger size than eithe’" of 
the existing condors; in fact Pleistogyps, be- 
cause of its great size and the fact that it is rep- 
resented only by tarsi, while Teratornis was 
described from skull and pectoral girdle, 
arouses the suspicion that it might, indeed, be 
identified with Teratornis. The author arrives 
at his decision to the contrary by carefully 
weighing the various considerations concerned 
with such a problem. The reader is left im- 
pressed with the conclusiveness of the auUior’s 
argument. All the way through, the present 
paper is notable for detailed, osteological study 
and cautious but imaginative inferential reas- 
oning. 
The third paper contributes “Additions to 
the Avifauna of the Pleistocene Deposits at 
Fossil Lake, Oregon” (lhii\-. Calif. Publ. Geol. 
VI, February 4, 1911 , pp. 79-87, figs. 1-,I). 
This deposit had been previously pretty thor- 
oughly exploited by Shufeldt. In Miller’s 
paper, three forms are recorded, not mentioned 
by Shufeldt, and one of these, ^Tschviophorus 
Incasi, is described as new. A summarized list 
of all the species of the avifauna is given. This 
otherwise excellent paper is marred by numer- 
ous mis-spelled words, a feature doubtless de- 
plored by all concerned with the publication of 
the paper, but due to a fortuitous lapse of the 
pen or mind to which no one appears to be 
wholly immune.— J. G. 
Notes on the Passengeir Pigeon, by W. J. 
McGee (Science, n. s., vol. xxxii, no. 8,i,S, De- 
cember 30, 1910, pp. 9,58-964). 
It is not at all probable that ornithologists 
will regard seriously the statement of Mr. 
McGee that the Passenger Pigeon is still to be 
found in abundance in southern Arizona, in the 
extremely arid desert region between Nogales 
and Yuma. Had the pigeon sought the seclu- 
sion of the desert for a respite from incessant 
persecution, it is at least probable that some 
one of the numerous collectors that have ex- 
plored the region would have secured a speci- 
men at some time. Such has not been the 
case, nor did the naturalists accompanying the 
United .States Mexican Boundary Survey report 
their occurrence in that region, though in 1894 
they visited the e.xact spot where Mr. McGee 
claims to have seen the birds (Tinajas Altas). 
.Vs he was quite evidently unable to distinguish 
between the California and Gambel Quails we 
are probably safe in assuming that he mistook 
some other species for the Passenger Pigeon. — 
H. .S. .S. 
Tracy on the “Significance of White 
Markings in Birds of the Order Passeri- 
