232 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XIV 
Rarbara group of islands, eight in number, off 
the coast of southern California, whereas the 
Grinnell list included only the water birds in 
the vicinity of Santa Catalina and Santa Bar- 
bara islands. Aside from the increase of terri- 
tory covered, the present paper closely follows 
the model set by Grinnell in his 1898 list, es- 
pecially in the concise manner of recording 
facts. 
Mr. Willett, more than any other southern 
California ornithologist, has given special at- 
tention to the birds occurring along the shore 
and among the islands ol¥ the coast, and his 
activity has, in a way, set the pace fcr others, 
with the result that an immense amount of 
data has been accumulated. Some of this has 
been published in random notes, but much of 
it was kept in cold storage in the inaccessible 
note books of Individual workers. The Club, 
therefore, was particularly happy in its se- 
lection of a collaborator so well qualified to 
carry out the work. His long list of “ac- 
knowledgements” indicates how zealously he 
has followed up every source of information 
available. Besides this formal acknowledge- 
ment, full credit is given in the body of the 
work to each individual contributor. Previous 
to 1898, when the Grinnell list was issued, 
aside from occasional trips to the islands and 
along the beaches, no systematic work was 
done among the water fowl and shore birds. 
Since that time, under the example of Mr. 
Willett, that branch of ornithology has been 
actively investigated, with the result that 
some thirty-nine species have been added to 
tliose recorded in 1898. The total number of 
three hundred land and water birds recorded 
in 1898, has been increased to 377 in the 
present paper, about equally distributed be- 
tween the land birds, and the shore and water 
birds. Much of this increase, however, is ac- 
counted for by the more extensive territory- 
covered and the greater number of workers 
over the larger area. The work previous to 
1898, was centered in scarcely half a dozen 
earnest students, in a limited area. 
Tn many cases the notes enable us to make 
comparisons with conditions which existed 
previous to 1898. For instance, Grinnell and 
Gaylord visited a colony of Cassin Anklet 
(Ptyclwraiuphiis aleiificus) on Santa Barbara 
Island on May 16, 1897. In June, 1911, Mr. 
Willett found “that the old breeding colony 
of these birds was entirely abandoned. From 
the bones and feathers of this bird found all 
over the island, I concluded that they had 
been exterminated by the cats with which 
the island is infested. On a detached rocky 
islet, a quarter of a mile from the main 
island, I found about one hundred pairs of 
anklets nesting.” It seems that the cat ques- 
tion has thrust itself even to the islands of 
the Pacific ! 
The list adheres closely to the nomenclat- 
ure employed in the A. O. U. Check-List of 
1910, although in a number of instances the 
author ditfers from this authority on ques- 
tions of distribution of certain species and sub- 
species. Indeed, who of our California workers 
does not? In each case he gives full reason 
for his contrary opinions. A hy-pothetical list 
gives eighteen species of more or less doubt- 
ful occurrence. The paper concludes with an 
index of the scientific and common names of 
all species noted. That this contribution has 
passed under the able editorship of Joseph 
Grinnell and Harry S. Swarth, vouches for 
its high standard in every respect. Indeed. 
Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 7 maintains the 
high standard set by the previous publications 
of the Club, and is a model which may be en- 
larged upon, but can scarcely be improved. 
Frank S. Daggett. 
Magen- und Gewoeeuntersuch ungen un- 
SERER EINITElMISCHEN R.'tUBVOGEE. by Dr. Eu- 
GEN Greschik. f — Aquila, vol. 18, pp. 111-177, 
6 figs, in text]. 
One of the first, and in our estimation 
one of the best of the publications of the U. 
S. Biological Survey, was Fisher’s “Hawks 
and Owls of the United States.” As tne eco- 
nomic value of the birds of prey is far more 
evident than that of other birds, it seems very 
fitting that these birds should be the trrst 
ones to be considered by the economic orni- 
thologist. In several foreign countries in- 
terest is centered at the present time in the 
food of hawks and owls. 
In Aquila for 1911, Dr. Eugen Greschik 
continues a report of his researches on the 
food of the native birds of prey of Hungary. 
The paper- is entitled : “Stomach and Pellet 
Examination of Our Native Birds of Prey.” 
The first installment, published in Aquila for 
1910, furnished evidence as to the food of 
the hawks, whereas the more recent article 
deals with the owls. 
The introduction to the last contribution 
points out the need of protection for owls, 
owing to the great vearly slaughter. Evidence 
is advanced that at least 11,593 LUireulen and 
18,738 other owls were shot in 1907. Atten- 
tion is called to the value of these birds to the 
agriculturist and forester, so that better pro- 
tection may result. Reference is also made 
to the economic work of the U. S. Biological 
Survey, and to that of certain European 
museums and societies. Emphasis is laid on 
the necessity of “p.ositive data” as to the 
food of birds as a means of determining their 
real value. 
A discussion of the food of the seven spe- 
cies of owls to be found in Hungary forms 
the main part of the paper. Short descriptions 
of the habitat and habits, and figures of the 
