Xov., 1911 
PUB LI CAT I ONS RP:vI KWI-n ) 
21.S 
of California Mnseuin of Vertebrate Zoology 
presents this liberal measure of resnlts for a 
single season’s work. The author, with one 
assistant, Mr. A. E. Hasselborg, spent the six 
months from April to October in visiting six- 
teen islands and six mainland localities in 
southeastern Alaska, reaching practically all 
important points not covered by the previous 
expedition of 1907. Somewhat more than 
1000 specimens of birds and mammals were 
collected and a great amount of trustworthy 
information obtained. The list of birds totals 
137 forms of which the 31 not attested by spec- 
imens are mostly included upon the careful 
observation and competent authority of the 
author himself. The extended critical and 
ecological notes bristle with facts new, inter- 
esting, and pertinent to particular ' prob- 
lems. The notes on spring migration are es- 
pecially welcome as very few observations 
have been made in this region earlier than May 
and June. In spite of the evident active field 
work done, one notes with no surprise that but 
little is recorded of nesting habits and the 
more intimate features of the bird life. Such 
matters must be left to local observers, for the 
itinerant collector in virgin fields can never 
spare the time for them. The critical notes 
are rather too numerous for specific mention, 
but it may be said that they carry a spirit of 
fairness and in a number of cases matters are 
presented in a new light or with additional 
and highly pertinent material tending to elu- 
cidate the status of various species and sub- 
species. Among the forms touched upon in 
this manner are Macrorhamphus griseus 
scolopaceus,Buteo b. alascensiis, Picoides a.fumi- 
pectus, Dryobates v. harrisi, D. p. glacialis, 
Passerculus s. savanna, jnneo oreganus, Hi- 
rnndo e. palnieri and Dendroica c. hooveri. 
Mo new forms were discovered, and in view of 
the large collections and their careful study, 
this seems to indicate that possibilities in this 
direction are well nigh exhausted in a long 
productive region. 
A very interesting section of the report, de- 
voted to “Distributional Considerations,” is 
all too short, although the modest statements 
of facts and conditions which it includes are 
perhaps better without ingenious elaboration 
of the theories to which they might lend 
themselves. In finding no faunal relation- 
ship between Prince of Wales Island and the 
Queen Charlotte group, the author is at vari- 
ance with former writers who had the advan- 
tage of the possession of extensive material 
from both localities. 
Doubtless he is right as to the reference of 
specimens, bnt we venture the belief that the 
Queen Charlotte forms are approached more 
closely b}' specimens from Prince of Wales 
Island and nearby islets than from elsewhere. 
Arrangement, typography, and proofreading 
are above reproach, bnt the fastidious might 
ask for a more dignified abbreviation than 
Grin, for Grinnell, especially as we do not 
find on the same page, corresponding abridg- 
ments to Les., Lin., Nnt., and Pal. — W. 11. 
Osgood. 
The Ward-McIdhenny Wildfowl Ref- 
uge. By Charles Willis Ward [=Forest 
and Stream, vol. LXXVII, no. 5 , fnly. 1911. 
pp. 167-170, 5 ills.] 
It is hard to overestimate the practical value 
of such game protection as is here described. 
To set aside large tracts of suitable land (there 
are 13,000 acres in this refuge) on which abso- 
lutely no shooting is allowed, will most assur- 
edly protect the game thereon, while, as the 
writer says, “laws limiting their killing, pro- 
hibitions of the sale of game, societies for the 
protection of game, all seem inadequate to pre- 
vent the steady destruction of wild life”. Of 
game laws, supposedly protective, but too 
often juggled with and adjusted to benefit 
various coteries of shooters, rather than the 
game, we have a superabundance, frequently 
so complicated and contradictory in different 
parts of the same state that it is hard for the 
conscientious sportsman to obey, and frequently 
easy for the unscrupulous to evade them. After 
years of experimentation along the same gen- 
eral lines we are forced to admit that our 
present system of game preservation is a 
failure, and that unless some radical changes 
are made, many of our game birds and mam- 
mals, and many non-game birds as well, are 
certain to disappear. Some have already gone. 
The “game refuge” idea holds out a gleam of 
hope. It looks practical and reasonable, and, 
linked with sensible restrictive laivs covering 
the country at large, should do much to arrest 
the deplorable decrease of animal life. It is 
an undertaking that should be carried out by 
the various state governments, but the states 
are slow to move in such matters, and any 
private individuals stepping in meanwhile 
and doing as Messrs. Mcllhenny and Ward 
have done deserve the fullest measure of praise 
and credit for their work. They seem to be 
going ahead in an eminently practical and un- 
sentimental way. vSportsmen themselves, 
and fond of shooting, they are attacking the 
problem from the standpoint not that it is 
wrong to kill for sport but that it is eminently 
foolish and unsportsmanlike to utterly destro}' 
so valuable an asset as the game of a country, 
and leave nothing for the morrow. We wish 
them the fullest mea.sure of success. Their 
efforts should be given the widest publicity, 
and the results studied carefully. Would that 
other wealthy men could be found to attempt 
the same thing elsewhere; such refuges are 
badly needed in our own state, and could prob- 
