Nov., 1903 I 
THE CONDOR 
157 
The Santa Cruz Island Vireo 
BY JOSEPH GRINNELL 
Vireo mailliardorum new species 
Ch.\racters — Similar to Vireo huttoni of the mainland of California, but slightly inferior 
in size with especialh^ smaller bill; coloration darker, more leaden olive above and a little more 
buffy yellow below posteriorly. 
Type — ^ (in unworn adult annual plumage); No. 5425 Coll. J. G.; Friar’s Harbor, Santa 
Cruz Island, California; September i, 1903; collected by J. Grinnell. 
Measurements (in inches) — 
Collection 
No. 
Date 
Sex 
Wing 
Tail 
Tarsus 
Culein 
Bill from 
nostril 
J. Grinnell 
5424 
Sept. I, 
'03 
? 
2.35 
2.15 
.78 
.40 
•25 
5425 
t ( ( ( 
“ 
3 
2.40 
2.16 
•71 
.40 
•25 
5426 
( ( ( ( 
( i 
6 
2.38 
2.14 
.76 
•39 
• 24 
J.&J.W. Mailliard 
3145 
April 15, 
’98 
5 
2-39 
2 . II 
.76 
.40 
• 25 
3171 
“ 17. 
‘ ‘ 
? 
2.27 
2.06 
.72 
• 39 
•24 
3218 
“ 21 
“ 
5 
2.43 
2.15 
.72 
.40 
• 25 
Distribution — Permanently resident on Santa Cruz Island, California. 
Remarks — Santa Cruz Islands lies about twenty miles off the coast of Santa Barbara county, 
California. Although it is so close to the mainland, a large number of its plants and more seden- 
tary animals have proven to be peculiar. Mr. Joseph Mailliard during a visit to this island in 
1898 a secured three specimens of the above-described bird. Moreover he mentioned some of its 
points of difference as compared with the mainland Vireo hiittoni\ but his well-known conserva- 
tive attitude in regard to slightly defined species deterred him from bestowing a name. During 
a recent visit to Santa Cruz Island I also found Vireo ntailliardoriini to be fairly numerous among 
the live-oaks in the canyons at the west end. Three specimens were obtained. The six skins at 
hand agree in the characters as outlined. The species is named for Messrs. Joseph and John W. 
Mailliard, whose conscientious work with western birds deserves at least this slight token of our 
recognition. 
correspondence: 
The A. 0. U. Model Law 
To THE Editors of the Condor; 
Dear Sirs: — Under the head of ‘Editoral Notes’ in the Septeniber-October issue of The 
Condor is a most surprising outburst of criticism and abuse of the A. O. U. ‘model law’ and, in- 
cidentially, of the A. O. U. Committee on Bird Protection, so evidently prompted by selfishness 
and so pervaded with ignorance and misconception of the real facts of the ca.se that a word 
in reply seems desirable. The outcry ' is against the clause granting permits to properly accred- 
ited persons for the collection of birds and their nests and eggs for strictly scientific purposes, 
which was inserted especially to allow “Ornithology to come in.’’ “Take this feature away, 
says the writer, 2 “and it is a good law.’’ He glories in the fact that his own State of California 
“is still free,’’ and adds that “it is largely to this fact that its exceptional ornithological activity 
is due. We need a good bird law here, but we of the Cooper Club are not criminals and do not 
require to be bonded when we seek the festive song sparrow or chickadee.’’ 
The fact is overlooked that without this provision the ornithologists who merely collect 
birds, for scientific study, the pot hunter and the commercial bird trapper would all be in the 
same criminal category of law breakers, subject to arrest and punishment whenever detected. 
3 The hardship, here editorially so grossly exaggerated, of taking out a bond and paying the 
trivial fee of one dollar a year, suffices to differentiate the ornithological collector from the crimi- 
nal classes, and ensures his protection from the anno3"ance of arrest, to which he would other- 
wise be liable. The law cannot well otherwise discriminate such non-criminals as the members of 
the Cooper Club, or of the A. O. U., or other reputable bird students, from the pot hunter, the niil- 
Bulletin Cooper Orn. Club I, Maj' 1899, p. 44. 
