July, 1902. I 
'I'Hl': COXDOI' 
97 
by Dr. Merriain’s various publications on the 
subject. The faunal areas coiupri.se (i) the 
“Humid Coast Fauna,” which is subdivided 
into a “Northern Humid Coast Belt” and a 
southern ‘‘Santa Cruz District;” (2) the “Cali- 
fornia Fauna” including the drv “San Joacjuin- 
Sacramento Basin,” “San Francisco Bay 
Region,” “San Diegan District,” and “Santa 
Barbara Islands”; (3) the Sierran Fauna,” 
divided into two subfaunas, the “Sierra Ne- 
vada” and Southern vSierras;” (4) the “.\rid 
Interior Fauna,” including the “Great Basin’ 
and “Colorado Desert” snl)faunas. 
The Check-list comprises pages 9 to 74, and 
the Hypothetical List 75 to 79. This is followed 
b}' a full index of names and .synonyms. The 
list includes the scientific name of each species 
with the original authoritv and the authoritv 
for the combination. Each name is preceded 
by a running list number, and, in parenthesis, 
the A. O. U. Check-list number, B'ollowing the 
scientific name, on the line below, is the com- 
mon or Eng ish name. Under each species is 
given a list of S3’nonynis, that is “all the other 
names besides the accepted one bv which 
each species has been known in California lit- 
erature.” Following this is the ‘.status’ which 
“is intended to give in a condensed sentence 
the range, comparative abundance and season 
of occurrence of the species in cjuestion. The 
range is usualh' expressed bv Zones and 
Faunal Areas wlr'ch are outlined in the accom- 
pan\’ing maps.” The list comjwises 491 .species 
and subspec'es which are distributed thru the 
orders as follows; IH’gopodes, 17; Longipennes, 
23; Tubinares, 17; .Steganopodes, 6; .Lnseres, 42; 
Herodiones, 10; Pali’dicolae, 8; Limicolse, 37; 
Gallinai, 9; Columbae, 4; Raptores, 38; Coc- 
C}'ges, 3; Pici, 21; IMacrochires, 17; Passeres, 
239. The Hc’pothetical List includes 33 species. 
The author’s “conservatism’ has led him to 
include all species as well as subspecies that in 
ail}- wa}- .seem worthv of recognition, for, as 
he states, a subspecies is as imporant as a 
species fancl, the reviewer would add,, often 
much more im2:)orant in bringing to light facts 
of distribution, migration routes, and the effect 
of environments). Desjjite the oft rejieated 
‘regrets’ of la\- ornithologists, and the objec- 
tions of tho,‘^e scientists whose knowledge comes 
b\' insjiiration rather than from specimens, 
the.se fine!}’ sj^lit subs|)ecies exist in nature and 
are the ver\- factors which make the avifauna 
of California the most i;)er2‘)lexing and likewise 
one of the most intere.sting in all of North 
America. We heartily agree with our foremost 
.s\‘stematist, Mr. Ridgwaj^, that the best in- 
terests of science are .subserved bv i>rosecuting 
the 2)resent methods of .siditting to a logical 
conclusion. 
Not a few of the forms accejAed b\‘ Mr. Grin- 
nell have been excluded from the A. O. U. 
Check-list, and likewise a few ajipearing in 
this standard work have been omitted from the 
California Check-li.st. Probablv we have no 
rea.son to hope for nomenclatural stabilitr- 
until .systematic ornithology' has ceased to 
jirogress. 
The jmesent jjaijer is the most imiiortant 
work on California ornithology that has aj> 
jieared in recent years. — W. K. !■'. 
Ohkkhol.skr’.s Rkvikw ok thk Hornek 
L.vrk.s f'/'/'or. C. S. A7 It/. XXI\\Jiiue /go2, 
pp. So/-SSj, p//. X/.ril-XLJ\ maps J-/ 1 ')— 
This paper strikes us as a model of detailed sj'S- 
tematic work. Points of nomenclature seem 
to be worked out beyond question, and the 
standard of nameable races ajjjjeals to us as 
(juite conservative enough. For the jiresent, 
at least, we ought to be justified iu accepting 
IMr. Oberholser's conclusions as decisive. 
As affecting California, several iniiiortant 
changes are made. The snbsiiecies we have 
been calling chrysoUcma is renamed actia, the 
former name proving exclusively' ajjplicable to 
a distinct IMexican form. What we have known 
as arcnicola from the southeastern de.serts is 
.seixirated from the more eastern forms as a new 
race, ammophila. A new race is also described 
from the vicinity of Yuma and is called leiican- 
siptila. A Rocky IMountain form, Icucolanna, 
is recorded from the east-central border of the 
.State in winter. All the rest’ of the races 
are as given in our “Checklist of California 
Birds,” making, all together, eight ilistinct 
horned larks occurring in California. 
P'rom a more general jjoint of view Mr. Gber- 
holser's pajier is of decided interest. While 
Henshaw in 1884 recognized bv name eight 
different horned larks from North .\merica, 
and D.vight in 1890 distinguished eleven forms 
from the same region, iMr. Oberho’ser’s studies 
lead him to recognize no le.ss than twentv- 
one different forms, all of which he treats as 
subsjiecies of Otocoris alpestris. This growing 
number is ixirth' accounted for by an increase 
of available material, and also is significant of 
the rapid develo])ment of our analvtical facul- 
ties. We can but await the results of the next 
Otocoris-monograjoher’s w'ork with es^jecial in- 
terest. As Mr. Oberholser states in the j^resent 
jjajier, almost infinite division is iiossible, and 
he might have easily' doubled the number of 
races admitted. What will be the degree of 
difference recognized twelve y'ears hence? 
There is one jiractice in this jm2;)er which 
.seems fo us ojien to cpiestion. To select a case 
for illustration, Mr. Oberholser gives Stockton 
as a .station for leucohcDta based on one (or 
morel winter s2)eciniens. Now' may' not this 
individual, showing an aggregate of characters 
neare.st leiicolcema, l)e not simjjly' an individual 
extreme of, say, merriUi\ which occurs in num- 
bers in the same locality' at the .same season? 
The author jilainly states that individual and 
“local” variation within the range of a W'ell- 
defined race’ may' produce extreme ty'pes more 
different from each other than the average of 
that race is from the average of another of an 
entirely separate range. Is there not danger of 
denoting .such extreme individuals by' the 
names of similarly looking subsjiecies when 
their real affinities are not w'ith those races at 
all? It is very evident that mistakes of this 
kind would lead to wrong deductions in regard 
to migratory movements, and distribution in 
general, which is after all where the chief 
value of di.stingnishing geograjAiical races 
comes in. — J. G. 
