July, 1911 
PU B L I C AT IONS RE VI EWED 
141 
in January as established by IMr. Bowles, so 
that the criticism of this and similar cases does 
not appear fairly deserved. IMr. Bowles’ rec- 
ord in itself is, however, of decided value in 
adding a definite station to our detailed data 
on the distribution of the bird. 
In the second place the obvious fact, appar- 
ent to anyone studying distribution of North 
American birds, that very many good records 
were overlooked by the compilers of the Check- 
1, ist, resulting in inadequate statements of 
range, would fully warrant several of I\Ir. 
Bowles’ “extensions”. Here, however, IMr. 
Bowles might have clearly indicated whether 
his contrilmtion was to serve as a criticism of 
the Check-List, or as an actual addition to 
known facts. (By “known” is meant pub- 
lished, and hence available to the public.) 
Thus, Passerctilus rostratus rostnitus had been 
previously recorded from Santa Barbara (Ileer- 
mann, Pac. R. R. Rep. X, l.S,S9, p. 46) and 
even as far north as Santa Cruz (Maillianl, 
Condor VI, Jan. 1904, p. 16). 
In the third place the difficulties? in the wa}' 
of proper sub-specific designation have evi- 
dently lead to a difference in employment of 
names, and so have given rise to “extensions” 
of range, in some cases probably warranted, in 
others not. The subspecific status of any bird 
in a given region cannot be safely considered 
as established upon the snap judgment of even 
the foremost of experts, nor upon conclusions 
reached by any person with scanty material or 
limited experience in s3'stematic ornitholog}-. 
Thus in Psaltriparus the determination of the 
correct name of the form at .Santa Barbara 
would depend on a careful study of normal 
variation in series of specimens not only from 
Santa Barbara but from other geographic areas 
and taken at all seasons; also upon noniencla- 
tural considerations based upon a study of lit- 
erature with a view to ascertaining the appli- 
cability of the various proposed names. The 
same would be true for Chaniaea and Pipilo. 
Mr. Bowles’ remarks in regard to the status 
of the Bush-Tit and Wren-Tit at .Santa Barbara, 
give one to understand that the author thinks 
it probable that in each case two subspecies 
may exist in the vicinity, one being migratory. 
In our experience such a condition in these 
species is scarcely possible. Neither of the 
birds in question is migratorj- beyond a verj- 
limited local movement. The difference notet! 
in specimens will probablj" be found to fall 
within the range of variation due to seasonal, 
age, or individual factors. 
xVs of faunal interest and perhaps, worthy of 
different interpretation than that suggested by 
Mr. Bowles, the Stephens Fox Sparrow is re- 
corded from an elevation of ,3000 feet “in the 
hills of Santa Barbara County”, under date 
of August ,30. This is probably a transient 
.station, and uot a breeding station. It is 
not the: “farthest north record” for the species, 
as it is well known to breed in the high Tran- 
sition zone on the north side of Mt. Pinos, lat. 
,34° ,30' (see Auk XXII, Oct. 190,5, p. ,38,S). 
This locality is what is called “Tejon” Moun- 
tains in the A. (). U. Check-List. 
It is extremelj' unfortunate that Mr. Bowles 
put Pinicola enucleator californica on record 
from southern California upon such inadequate 
evidence as that submitted. The occurrence of 
the species at any season at so low an elevation 
as ,3000 feet anywhere in California is in itself 
exciting of comment. But when we consider 
that the species has never been recorded in 
California south of the head of the .San Jo,aquin 
river, in Madera or Fresno County (Fisher, 
N. Am. Fauna No. 7, IMay 189,3, p. 79), and 
never, winter or summer, below the Canadian 
life zone, a record like the present one de- 
mands the severest test. The California Pine 
Grosbeak is a species the occurrence of which 
anjwvhere under siich zonal conditions as the 
“hills of .Santa Barbara Countj-”, to be thor- 
oughly estal)lished would have to be backed up 
by the taking of specimens at the ver}- least. 
What makes this record the limit of badness is 
that it is couched in full scientific form and 
will have to be sjmonj’inized, but under what? 
If iintler Pinicola, an extra citation will be 
needed — with a (jnestion mark. 
Another criticism of Mr. Bowles’ paper is 
that some of the facts offered have been pub- 
lished fidly by himself or others elsewhere; for 
example, in the case of Steganopus tricolor at 
.Santa Barbara. Is it justifiatile to repeat rec- 
ords and thus multiply citations except where 
a general review of the status of a species is 
attempted? 
Now, whatever points I have indicated 
above, whether thej’ be accepted bj' 1113’ readers 
as well taken or not, are made with their gen- 
eral bearing in view, and not with the intent of 
personall3’ “scorching” IMr. Bowles! This 
should be clearly understood 1)3' the casual 
reader. In fact, Mr. Bowles told me some of 
the things he proposed to put on record long 
before this Auk article was sent in, and, know- 
ing that I might take exceptions, invited me 
to publish my criticisms freely. Not one of us 
is beyond the possibility of making egregious 
errors, and never will be. But let tis all ex- 
ercise caution and the extreme of care in put- 
ting our supposed facts on record. I have 
been gxiilty myself of making a number of bad 
records (see Condor IV, Jan. 1902, p. 17). It 
gives a distinctly uncomfortable feeling that I 
never cpiite escape from. Perhaps this in- 
dividual sensitiveness is a fortunate circum- 
stance for our science. If so, would that it 
were a trait common to all bird students ! — 
J. Grinneld. 
