188 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XV 
skinned toda}' measured 6J4 inches, and 
looked more. 
Talking of big things, as the right of a Cali- 
fornian, the frogs here are certainly in that 
category. When talking with the manager of 
the company in Lima, he told me that they 
were as big as my head. His secretary later 
told me that they stretched three feet or so 
from tip to tip ; then a conductor on the road 
had measured one that went twenty-six inch- 
es from one toe-tip to another, but when I 
saw my first one in the lake I believed them 
all. It came to the surface, stuck up a head 
like a turtle's, took a breath the same way, 
a.nd slowly swam downward as we rowed 
over the spot. Had I had a boat hook 1 verily 
believe that it could have been hauled to the 
surface, as many a turtle has been, with the 
hook caught under the chin. 
. . . Land birds are few. One yellow 
finch with a pleasant voice wakes us every 
morning, singing close by the window. It 
seems somewhat strange to find a species of 
woodpecker common up here in the treeless 
and shrubless hilltops, but one is often seen, 
calling from some rocky point or Hying off 
over the hillsides. 
We expect soon to get back to sea level, 
where shearwaters, petrels and boobies will 
take the place of flamingos, ibises and mud- 
hens. 
Sincerely, 
R. H. Beck. 
Lake Jnrin, Peru, April ly, 1913 . 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
.\ "Check List oe the Birds of the Se- 
quoia and Generae Grant National 
Parks.”- — A briefly annotated list with the 
above title appears in a 24-page circular of 
"General Information Regarding Sequoia and 
General Grant National Parks,” issued from 
the Office of the Secretary, Department of 
the Interior. This list has been printed, in 
almost identical form save for typographical 
errors, in the circular for at least the past 
two seasons, to the reviewer’s knowledge, 
1912 and 1913, pages 7 to 15 in the former, 
10 to 17 in the latter. 
The list is notable for its length, 184 
species being enumerated. The annotations 
are limited to one- to six-word comments 
upon seasonal status and relative abundance. 
The contribution is further striking in the 
large proportion of improbable occurrences, 
this furnishing the stimulus for the present 
critical review. 
A provoking thing about the list is its 
presentation in a government publication, 
showing unmistakable evidences of having 
passed the official scrutiny of ornithological 
authorities at Washington. And yet it has 
failed of that censorship which must ever be 
e.xercised in re.gard to the output of amateur 
observers, if our literature is to be kept up to 
scientific standard. 
We note a number of generic names as well 
as subspecific combinations, which give no 
hint of derivation from the standard A. 
O. U. Check-List. The tell-tale Tyto (for the 
Barn Owl) with little doubt in our mind.s 
emanates from a certain Washington office. 
Other significant evidence is afforded by 
Balaiiosphyra, Accipiter velox paciUcus, 
Horisopus, and Sayornis nigricans scniiater. 
In fact the guilt for allowing such a question- 
able lot of records to slip into print would 
seem not difficult to fix ! 
The two parks named are in the Sierra Ne- 
vada of Tulare and Fresno counties, Calif- 
fornia. The more dubious of the records are 
as follows : Florida caerulea, “rare winter 
visitant” (no previous record for Califor- 
nia!); Zanielodia ludoviciana, “very rare”; 
Sialia mcxicana anahelae, “very rare sum- 
mer resident”; Dendroica occidentalism “win- 
ter migrant”; Chaetura vauxi, "summer resi- 
dent”; Pinicola enuclcator calif arnica, “com- 
mon resident”; Jitnco oreganus shiifeldti, 
“winter migrant” (no satisfactory record for 
the State!); Bombycilla ccdroruni, “common 
summer resident”; Pipilo maculatus nionianus, 
"winter visitant”; Aiinoplnla ruficeps rud- 
ceps, “winter visitant”. 
The list is stated to have been “compiled 
and identified by Walter Fry, ranger in 
charge.” The reviewer has corresponded 
with Mr. Fry at some length in an effort to 
secure scientifically acceptable verifications of 
some of the more important identifications. 
The information was elicited that either the 
“species in the list were determined by sight 
identification at very close range,” or that 
specimens were shot but in no case saved — 
an extremely unfortunate circumstance, 
especially as regards the “Little Blue Heron.” 
It should here be stated that the author of 
the list is well known to be an efficient of- 
ficer, and a man or more than ordinary acu- 
men as an observer; but even so, who of us 
would trust himself to put upon record such 
extraordinary things unless backed up by 
specimens preserved? 
Is it not incumbent upon naturalists in au- 
thority, especially those in connection with 
the governmental departments, to properly 
edit, or otherwise render innocuous, the con- 
tributions from enthusiastic amateurs? The 
latter are increasing in numbers — a very de- 
sirable thing — but our science will suffer just 
in proportion as their questionable obser- 
vations are allowed to assume apparently au- 
thentic position in our literature.— J. Grin- 
NELL. 
