156 
THE CONDOR 
| Vox,. VIII 
Because any one person fails to derive pleas- 
ure from a certain pursuit, it is not incumbent 
upon him to decry that pursuit as followed by 
anyone else, unless it involves an infringe- 
ment of the rights of others. bet ns be 
tolerant of one another's peculiarities. 
We know of some very despicable cases of 
egg-hoggisliness. Some egg-collecting is ab- 
solutely useless from any standpoint, and that 
sort we condemn. No reasonable collector 
will pursue any of our native animals to the 
verge of extermination. \Ye believe that mod- 
erate collecting will not work diminution in 
the numbers of any of our birds. We believe 
in the temperate collecting of anything which 
results in added happiness to the individual, 
just so no one else is directly inconvenienced 
thereby. Such an occupation becomes all 
the more commendable when it results in the 
addition of reliable information to our sum 
total of scientific knowledge. — J. G. 
RECORD In Mr. William Brewster’s ad- 
c R ITER f a mirable work just published on 
“The Birds of the Cambridge Re- 
gion of Massachusetts,” we find in the preface 
a statement of principles which deserve the 
widest possible recognition by serious bird stu- 
dents. We have ourselves intended to ex- 
press similar views in these columns. But 
now that we have them from so eminent an 
authority, and so distinctly stated, we take the 
liberty of quoting them verbatim. These sen- 
timents should be taken to heart by the author 
of every proposed local list or record. Publi- 
cation of any sort of information intended to 
be of scientific value is a serious step, and is 
not to be taken lightly. It is very easv to foist 
upon the science of ornithology undesirable, 
not to say erroneous, literature. 
Mr. Brewster says: — “My early training and 
experience have led me to believe tliat — with 
certain exceptions about to be specified — the 
occurrence of birds in localities or regions lv- 
ing outside their known habitats should not 
be regarded as definitely established until act- 
ual specimens have been taken and afterwards 
determined by competent authorities. No 
doubt it is becoming more and more difficult to 
live up to this rule because of the ever increas- 
ing and, in the main, wholesome, popular 
feeling against the killing of birds for what- 
ever purpose. Nevertheless I cannot admit 
that mere observation of living birds met with 
in localities where they do not properlv belong, 
or where they have not been ascertained to oc- 
casionally appear, should often be considered as 
establishing anything more than possible or 
probable instances of occurrence — according to 
the weight and character of the evidence. 
“Exceptions to the rule may and indeed 
should be made in the cases of species 
which, like the Turkev Vulture, the 
Swallow-tailed Kite, and the Cardinal, are 
easily recognized at a distance and which are 
reported by persons known to have had previ- 
ous familiarity with the birds in life. Sight 
identifications of species somewhat less dis- 
tinctly characterized than those just mentioned, 
if made under favorable conditions by observ- 
ers of long field experience and tried reliabil- 
ity, may also sometimes be accepted with en- 
tire confidence. But on no authority, however 
good, should a mere field observation of any 
bird that is really difficult to identify, be taken 
as establishing an important primal record. 
“These principles, which, in my opinion, 
should govern the makers as well as compil- 
ers of all local records, were formerly en- 
dorsed, and also followed in the main, by most 
ornithologists. Of late they have been fre- 
quently disregarded, especially by the younger 
generations of bird lovers and stu :ents. I have 
endeavored to apply them consistently and 
firmly — yet at the same time tolerantly — in 
dealing with the records considered in the 
present paper. If some of my rulings appear 
arbitrary, it must be remembered that it is not 
always possible to explain the reasons which 
cause one to look askance at the testimony of 
certain observers while accepting that of others 
with entire confidence. It goes without saying 
that personal considerations — whether of friend- 
ship or the reverse — should never be allowed to 
influence the judgment of any waiter on scien- 
tific subjects, but bis personal knowledge of 
men and their methods not only does but 
should exert such nfluence. Moreover there 
is often internal evidence in printed testimonv 
— perhaps no more tangible than that to be 
gained by what is called ‘reading between the 
lines' — that leads one irresistibly, and, as a 
rule, quite safely, to adopt conclusions which 
cannot always be logically justified or consist- 
ently explained." — J. G. 
why should it In number 56 of The IVilson 
have been Bulletin (September, 1906) 
printed? occurs an article entitled 
“Common Birds of Whittier, 
California,” which excites our severe criticism. 
In this article appears a half page of introduc- 
tory matter in which the author states the list 
following to have been derived from notes 
taken between November 7, 1905, and May 7, 
1906 — a period of seven months. And yet the 
list is divided into “Residents,” “Winter Visi- 
tants,” “Summer Residents,” and “Tran- 
sients”! The author, by the way, is very evi- 
dently an “easterner” visiting southern Cali- 
fornia for the winter. As far as we know', not 
a specimen was secured to verify the determi- 
nations. The list is the main part of the 
paper, occupying nearly four pages, and embrac- 
ing no less than ninety-two species. Only one 
of these, “Numenius sp?”, is queried, and we 
are led to believe that there can be absolutely 
no doubt as to the identity of each of the 
other ninety-one species enumerated. What 
galls us most is that the list is couched in full 
scientific form, containing both scientific and 
common names and hence each species must be 
quoted in our svnommv. These will tax our 
printer's supply of question marks! 
We have quoted elsewhere Mr. Brewster’s 
remarks regarding records, and these are ex- 
tremelv apropos in the present instance. 
Thearticle in question is poorly edited in sev- 
eral particulars; foronethingtherearealtogether 
too many typographical errors. We would em- 
