75 
THE CONDOR 
May., 1902. 1 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. 
Summer Birds of Flathead Lake, by P. 
M. Silloway(= University of Montana Bull., 
No. 3, Biol. Ser. No. i, [Dec. ?] 1901). 
This is a neatly prepared paper of 83 pages 
and 16 plates, treating at more or less length of 
12S species. The plates are from photos, 
mostly of nests and eggs, though these are de- 
tached, that is, not in sifit. The accounts re- 
late chiefly to the nesting habits and local dis- 
tribution of each bird. These are of much 
general interest for in this section of Montana 
eastern species are found breeding in close 
proximity to typically western forms; for ex- 
ample, red eyeil vireo and Audubon warbler, 
common kingbird and .\rkansas kingbird, 
catbird and Louisiana tanager. We are parti- 
cularly interested in the extended biographi- 
cal accounts of the willow thrush, olive- 
backed thrush, Macgillivray warbler, Audu- 
bon warbler, cedar waxwing and Wright 
flycatcher. The present publication also con- 
tains much valuable data for the student of 
geographical distribution. The known ranges 
of several forms, such as Icteria virens longi- 
cauda, seem to be materially extended. As the 
author clearly states, the records, tentatively 
made of Lams occidentalism Melospiza georgi- 
ana and Coccyzus erythrophthahnus are open 
to question, and should not be accepted until 
their identit}" is confirmed. We wish that all 
authors of similar productions would take as 
much care as is evidenced in Mr. Silloway’s 
paper. ‘'Summer Birds of I'lathead Lake” is a 
credit to its author and to the University of 
INfontana. — J. G. 
Annotated Li.st of the Bird.s of Ore- 
gon, K . R. Woodcock ( = Bull. No. 68, Ore. Agr. 
Exp. Sta., Jan. 1902). 
It was with pleasant anticipation that we be- 
gan the jierusal of this loo-page list. For 
Oregon is of extreme interest ornithologically, 
and a succinct resume' of the birds of that 
State would be a valuable basis for the work- 
ing faunist, as well as a guide to local observers. 
But the present paper is a disappointment. It 
bristles with indefinite statements, question- 
able records and obvious misidentifications. 
We cannot help but doubt the records of such 
sjiecies Anas penelope {“co\\\n\o\\ inspring!)” 
Gelochelidon nilotica (‘‘a ver}- common fall 
migrant”), Puffinus stricklandim Megascops 
flammeola {“ssiW’ one specimen”), Hcematopiis 
palliatus, Spizella piisilla arenacea, and others, 
besides fully twenty-five misapplied trino- 
mials. 
Previous literature relevant to Oregon birds 
is apparently ignored, only Belding’s ‘‘Land 
Birds of the Pacific District,” and Bendire’s 
“Life Histories” being quoted. The major 
part of the information seems to have been de- 
rived from local observers some of -whom are 
evidently inexperienced. True, the author 
disclaims any responsibility for the statements 
of his correspondents. But still we believe it 
the duty of compilers to exert intelligent dis- 
crimination, at the same time showing utmost 
conservatism. We cannot see that the pre- 
sent list is of any scientific value whatever. It 
will certainly serve to increase the drudgery of 
the synonymist and swell his hypothetical 
lists. It still remains therefore for someone to 
prepare an authoritative checklist of Oregon 
birds. — J. G. 
Birds of Song and Story | by 1 Eliza- 
beth and Joseph Grinnell | Authors of “Our 
Feathered Friends” | [poem, 7 lines] | [vig- 
nette] I Chicago I A. W. Mumford, Publish- 
er I 1901 [December]. 
To the amateur bird-student and to those 
who have a taste for literature rather than dry 
compilations of observations the present book 
will prove of pleasing interest. The authors 
have apparently endeavored to sugar-coat a 
fair amount of information with enough of 
word-painting and romance to insure its recep- 
tion by a class of readers which far outnumber 
real bird-students. The scaffolding of facts 
presented is true to nature, and in places even 
the hardened “bird-crank” is thrilled b}' the 
vividness of portrayal. The chapter on “The 
Meadow Lark” happened in particular to ini- 
pre.ss the present reviewer with its vein of 
pathos and homely allusion. Among the six- 
teen chapters contained in the book others 
which we can especially recommend are on 
“The Mocking Bird,” ‘‘The Orioles,” “Sjiar- 
rows and .Sparrows,” ‘‘At Nesting Time,” and 
“The Tanager People.” Although evidently 
intended for more or less juvenile readers, 
Birds of Song and Story will be read with in- 
terest by people of maturer taste as well. The 
sixteen full-page illustrations (of the birds 
treated in the text) are done in the well-known 
three-color process. — C. B. 
COMMUNICATIONS. 
Editor The Condor: 
In your March issue there appears a letter 
from Dr. R. W. Shufeldt, in regard to the 
pterylography of hummingbirds, which seems 
to me to demand a word of reply. Dr. .Shu- 
feldt asks why I inquire whether “humming- 
birds are cypseloid or caprimulgoid.” If he 
had read the first paragraph of my paper in 
Science carefully, he would not have to be in- 
formed that it was because Professor D’Arcy 
W. Thompson says they are more caprimul- 
goid than cypseloid in their pteryloses, while 
I hold as does Dr. .Shufeldt that they are not 
at all caprimulgoid. 
As to whether they are cypseloid or not. Dr. 
