852 
THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY • Vol. 123, No. 4. December 2011 
is flawed. Murray identified three serious prob¬ 
lems with the Mayfield Method. Particularly 
damning is his recognition that daily mortality 
rate cannot be the number of nest failures divided 
by the number of exposure days. Remarkably, this 
manuscript was rejected by approximately six 
journals (page 186). Murray’s lengthy, incisive 
response (pages 203-236) to the inept Condor 
reviewers is a rour de force. Those ornithologists 
still using the Mayfield Method would be strongly 
advised to read this chapter. 
Space constraints preclude discussion of the 
many other noteworthy insights in Murray’s 
volume. I am satisfied Murray’s ideas warrant 
serious consideration and that rejection of these 
manuscripts was unjustified. Watching events 
from Africa, I have been puzzled at the disdainful 
treatment Murray has received. For instance, in all 
leading review papers discussing clutch size 
evolution (e.g., Godfray ct al. 1991; Martin 
1996, 2004; Ricklel's 2000) there is not a single 
mention of the Murray-Nolan Equation. Those 
authors were perfectly entitled to disagree with 
Murray’s theoretical perspectives, but it is unsci¬ 
entific (if not disingenuous) that these authors 
(and many others) ignore the equation without at 
least saying something like "we disagree with this 
equation because of reasons x, y and z”. This is 
even stranger when one remembers the success 
the equation had in predicting the clutch size of 
those species to which it was applied. I’m sure 
Murray's current iconoclastic book will likewise 
be ignored. The fact Murray focused on popula¬ 
tions rather than individuals (which seems [incor¬ 
rectly] to imply group selection), that he used 
hypothetical numbers rather than empirical data 
(ornithologists are a tribe of empiricists), that he 
avoided sophisticated mathematics and statistics 
(which often gives a deceptive patina of authority 
to many texts), and that he unashamedly identified 
several canonical ideas (like the Mayfield Meth¬ 
od) as flawed will simply be loo radical for many 
ornithologists to accept or even entertain-their 
theoretical arteries hardened years ago. But for 
those who remain open-minded, Bert Murray's 
book presents novel theoretical perspectives. 
These perspectives, in my opinion, come closer 
to the ultimate resolution of many fundamental 
evolutionary and ecological problems than any 
ornithologist has achieved in the entire history of 
our discipline. I am left to wonder what further 
evolutionary and ecological insights could be 
found in the other unpublished manuscripts of 
Bert Murray that were never accepted for 
publication.—GREGORY B. P. DAVIES. Cu¬ 
rator of Birds. Ditsong National Museum of 
Natural History (formerly Transvaal Museum), 
P. O. Box 413. Pretoria, South Africa; e-mail: 
greg (fl'ditsong.org.za 
LITERATURE CITED 
CHART,ESWORTH, B. 1994. Evolution in age-structured 
populations. Second Edition. Cambridge Universi¬ 
ty Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 
Godfray, H. C ]., L. Partridge, and P. H. Harvey. 
1991. Clutch size. Annual Review of Ecology and 
Systematics 22: 409-429. 
Martin, T. E. 1996. Life history evolution in tropical 
and south temperate birds: what do we really 
know? journal of Avian Biology 27: 263-272. 
Martin, T. E. 2004. Avian life-history evolution has an 
eminent past: does it have a bright future? Auk 
121: 289-301. 
RlCKLfTS, R. E. 2000. Density dependence, evolution¬ 
ary optimization, and the diversification of avian 
life histories. Condor 102: 9-22. 
HANDBOOK OF THE BIRDS OF THE 
WORLD. VOLUME 15; WEAVERS TO NEW 
WORLD WARBLERS. Edited by Josep del 
Hoyo, Andrew Elliott, and David Christie. Lynx 
Editions. Barcelona, Spain. 2010: 880 pages. 61 
color plates, and 495 photographs. ISBN: 978-84- 
96553-68-2. S299.15 (cloth).—This volume of 
the ambitious HBW series with 606 species 
accounts covers another precise 1/16 of the 
world’s bird species but, given the abundance of 
weavers and finches, probably much more than 
this fraction of the world's wild bird individuals. 
In fact, if the Handbooks weighted their 
treatment of species according to the number of 
individuals (recent estimates of the world's total 
ranging from 200 to 400 billion), hundreds of 
pages would be devoted to the Red-billed Quelea 
(Queleci quelea) alone, whose estimated popula¬ 
tion size is in the billions. But hardly a note 
would then be spared for one of the world's most 
spectacular but sadly decimated bird families, the 
Hawaiian honeycreepers (Drepanididae). Thank¬ 
fully. Volume 15 gives them ample space, 
abutting the expansive treatment of their parent 
family, the nearly globally successful finches 
(Fringilltdae, native everywhere but Australasia). 
Also often called ‘finches’ but a separate 
granivorous radiation rooted in Africa is a trio 
