number of the Bulletin contained (p. 111) a brief preliminary notice of
this work, prepared from advance proof sheets. It was not published
until June, and therefore too late for the appearance in our July number
of a satisfactory review. As stated in the title the work is a second
edition of the “Check List” which originally appeared in 1873 and was
reissued in 1874 in connection with “Field Ornithology,” as a reflex of
the classification and nomenclature of the “Key to North American Birds”
(1872), though containing a few additional species. The original List
gave 778 names; the present one gives 888, subtracting 10[118] and
adding 120.
“In revising the List,” says the author, “for the main purpose of
determining the ornithological _status_ of every North American bird,
the most scrupulous attention has been paid to the matter of
nomenclature,—not only as a part of scientific classification,
determining the technical relations of genera, species, and varieties to
each other, but also as involved in writing and speaking the names of
birds correctly. The more closely the matter was scrutinized, the more
evidences of inconsistency, negligence, or ignorance were discovered in
our habitual use of names. It was therefore determined to submit the
current catalogue of North American birds to a rigid examination, with
reference to the spelling, pronunciation, and derivation of every
name—in short, to revise the list from a philological as well as an
ornithological standpoint.”
“The purpose of the present ‘Check List’ is thus distinctly seen to be
two-fold: First, to present a complete list of the birds now known to
inhabit North America, north of Mexico, and including Greenland, to
classify them systematically, and to name them conformably with current
rules of nomenclature; these being ornithological matters of science.
Secondly, to take each word occurring in such technical usage, explain
its derivation, significance, and application, spell it correctly, and
indicate its pronunciation with the usual diacritical marks; these being
purely philological matters, affecting not the scientific status of any
bird, but the classical questions involved in its name” (pp. 3, 4).
The analysis of the two editions shows that of the 120 additions to the
old list the large majority are _bona fide_ species, and actual
acquisitions to the North American list, being birds discovered since
1873 in Texas, Arizona, and Alaska, together with several long known to
inhabit Greenland, which had never been formally included in the “North
American” list at the time Dr. Coues’s first Check List was issued,
though the Greenland Fauna, even then, was generally claimed and
conceded to be North American. Beside these, the increment is
represented by species or varieties named as new to science since 1873,
by a few restored to the list, and by two (_Passer montanus_ and
_Coturnix dactylisonans_) imported and now naturalized species.
The author states that the list includes the names of some twenty or
thirty sub-species which “my conservatism would not have allowed me to
describe as valid, and the validity of which I can scarcely endorse,”
but which are retained because “I preferred, in preparing a ‘Check List’
for general purposes, rather to present the full number of names in
current usage, and let them stand for what they may be worth, than to
exercise any right of private judgment, or make any critical
investigation of the merits of disputed cases.” In view of this
declaration, however, we fail to understand why such names as
_Carpodacus purpureus californicus_, _Chondestes grammicus strigatus_,
_Picus villosus leucomelas_, _Bubo virginianus subarcticus_, _Bubo
virginianus saturatus_, and _Oreortyx picta plumifera_ should have been
denied a place. Nor can we approve the exclusion of certain Audubonian
species “not since identified,” as well as some of Giraud’s, which there
is no good reason to doubt were actually taken in Texas. “A few Cape St.
Lucas birds have been so long in the ‘North American’ list that it is
not thought worth while to displace them”; but does not this
consideration apply with equal force to many of the Mexican species
which are excluded? Our present southern boundary is a political, not a
natural one, but this is all the more reason why it should be rigidly
adhered to if followed at all. As Dr. Coues remarks, however, it would
be far more satisfactory, from a scientific standpoint, to ignore the
present arbitrary line and include the whole “Nearctic Region,” thus
taking in the table lands of Mexico nearly to the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec.
To the analyses and comparisons succeed “Remarks on the use of Names,”
ten pages being devoted to the principles which have guided the author
in his philological researches so far as the etymology, orthography, and
orthoepy are concerned. This portion of the work has something more than
an indirect value, for it forms a condensed, readily available grammar
of the subject to which it pertains. The assistance here rendered by his
literary associate, Mrs. S. Olivia Weston-Aiken, is fittingly
acknowledged in the Introduction.
In the body of the Check List the names are printed in bold type, both
English and Latin, and are numbered 1 to 888. Sub-generic names are
entirely discarded, as is the sign of “var.” between specific and
subspecific terms. The nomenclature of sub-species is therefore
trinomial, without the slightest disguise. The technical name is
followed by the name of the original describer of the bird, and by that
of the authority for the particular combination adopted. The
“concordance of previous lists,” mentioned in the title, is effected by
referring by number to Baird’s List of 1858, Coues’s Check List of 1874,
and Ridgway’s Catalogue of 1880, in the case of every species.
On each page the names are duplicated in smaller type, divided into
syllables marked for quantity and accent, and their pronunciation
therefore shown, according to the system of orthoepy advocated. The most
important point secured, however, is the etymology or derivation of the
scientific words. “On the whole,” say the authors of this part of the
work, “it has not been our intention to go beyond a good fair definition
of these Greek and Latin words, considering that all practical purposes
are thus subserved.” The etymologies are really, however, traced far
back in many cases. “Nothing of the sort has been done before, to the
same extent at any rate, and it is confidently expected that the
information here given will prove useful to many who, however familiar
they may be with the appearance of the names on paper, have
comparatively little notion of the derivation, signification, and
application of the words, and who unwittingly speak them as they usually
hear them pronounced, that is to say, with glaring impropriety. No one
who adds a degree of classical proficiency to his scientific
acquirements, be the latter never so extensive, can fail to handle the
tools of thought with an ease and precision so greatly enhanced, that
the merit of ornithological exactitude may be adorned with the charm of
scholarly elegance” (p. 4).
The Check List proper is concluded with “a list of words defined,”
alphabetically arranged, and therefore serving as an index to the work.
The volume finishes with a chronological list of Dr. Coues’s writings on
ornithology.
Aside from modifications which affect the ornithological or scientific
_status_ of the “Check List,” the changes in nomenclature are numerous
and radical. Under our accepted, but in certain ways pernicious, system
of ornithological nomenclature most of these were probably necessary;
but we have little sympathy with the recent upheaval in this respect,
nor do we believe that the names at present advocated will prove more
stable than those which have preceded them. Stejneger has lately
shown[119] that neither Coues nor Ridgway reached the foundations; and
doubtless some one of an equally enquiring mind and with an imagination
still better adapted to interpreting ancient descriptions of uncertain
application, will yet come forward and work fresh havoc. The trouble
with this kind of investigation is that sufficient regard is rarely paid
to the rule that a description must be clearly defined, and that
“definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential
characters.” We have not forgotten Mr. Allen’s eloquent protest against
the adoption of certain Bartramian names, and there can be no doubt that
his objections will apply equally well to the descriptions of many other
early authors. Moreover, while we distinctly disclaim any personal
application of such a thought, we cannot help believing that if _the
practice of giving the authority for the arrangement of names_ were
discontinued, there would be less of this meddling with nomenclature. At
all events the evil is a terrible one, and it must be stopped, even if
the whole code has to be thrown overboard and a new one instituted. So
extreme a course, however, is probably unnecessary, for some simple
statute of limitation can doubtless be devised which will answer all the
required ends. Dr. Coues’s recent suggestion,[120] that fifty years of
unchallenged usage shall fix a name forever, is an excellent one, but
the time of probation might, with advantage, be reduced to twenty-five
years. Such a provision, with one requiring all proposed changes to be
referred to a tribunal composed of not less than three prominent
ornithologists, who might meet for the purpose at intervals of say once
in four years, would effectually prevent any further tampering with a
system which should be sacred, but which has become a mere football.
With respect to genera we are sorry to notice that Dr. Coues has
abandoned certain old-time principles and adopted many of the
sub-divisions which he rejected in the edition of 1873. Chief among
these are _Actodromas_, _Arquatella_, _Pelidna_, and _Ancylochilus_, in
_Tringa_; _Symphemia_ and _Rhyacophilus_ in _Totanus_; _Herodias_,
_Garzetta_, _Hydranassa_, _Dichromanassa_, _Florida_, and _Butorides_ in
_Ardea_, and _Chroïcocephalus_ in _Larus_. _Turdus_, however, is
retained for all the Thrushes of the sub-family _Turdinæ_, and _Vireo_,
in its euphonious simplicity, stands for all the Vireos. While we would
not be understood as condemning all the above changes, we consider the
majority of them arbitrary, and hence uncalled for. The ever increasing
tendency to institute new genera on differences of structure which in
other classes of Vertebrates would be considered no more than
well-marked specific characters, is one of the banes of modern
ornithology. Our systematists seem to have lost sight of the uses for
which genera were primarily intended. Of this school, however, Dr. Coues
is perhaps among the more conservative members.
Having fulfilled our duty of critic by finding all possible fault with
the “Coues Check List” we turn to the much pleasanter task of mentioning
some of its many good qualities. Of its several departments the
introductory chapters may be characterised as terse, practical, and to
the point; the Check List proper as carefully and in the main wisely
framed; the “dictionary” as an exhaustive treatise of high scholarly
excellence and of unquestionable utility. Concerning the whole work we
can say nothing stronger than that it is in every way worthy of its
brilliant and distinguished author, who has evidently made it one of his
most mature and carefully studied efforts. Its favorable reception can
be a matter of no uncertainty, for it fills a field of usefulness
peculiarly its own, and one which need in no way conflict with that so
ably covered by Mr. Ridgway’s recent “Nomenclature.”[121]—W. B.
GENTRY’S NESTS AND EGGS OF BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES.[122]—It is now
several months since the appearance of the twenty-fifth part, the final
number of this work, which was published by subscription. The text is
written by Mr. Gentry himself, while the plates were executed by Mr.
Edwin Sheppard, “subject to the suggestions and dictations of the
author.” The title is misleading, for instead of treating of all the
species found in the United States, it deals with but fifty—less than
one-fifth the number known to occur within this area.
The typography and press work are good, but the plates fall far short of
deserving the same praise. In the early numbers the nests and eggs were
generally figured alone, but the author soon acceded to the popular
demand and furnished colored representations of the birds on all plates
commencing with the seventh part; with the final number appeared four
extra plates, on which were shown the birds that were omitted in the
first six parts.
In a general way it may be said of most of the plates that the
perspective is very bad—if not absent altogether; that a large number of
the nests look as if temporarily balanced, like so many saucers, upon
the branches on which they rest, and from which they seem ready to
tumble on the slightest jar; and that nearly all have the appearance of
cheap chromo-lithographs, while none attain to the degree of excellence
essential to first-class workmanship. In order to give the subscribers
as much paint as possible for the money, the artist has endeavored to
supply backgrounds to many of the plates. Some of these seem intended to
represent distant mountains, but the greater number consist of dense,
and sometimes shapeless masses of solid green. At other times we are
treated to glimpses of the sky and ocean that rival, in depth and
intensity of color, the rich ultramarine-blue of the head of the
Nonpareil.
Turning now to the letter-press let us examine its claim to rank among
the contributions to ornithological literature. A few brief quotations
will suffice to show both the scope of the work and the author’s
estimate of its value. In the preface he says: “Especial pains have been
taken with the text. The aim of the author has been to present a short,
plain, and detailed account of the habits of each species described....
“Throughout the work, considerable prominence has been given to those
interesting and curious phases of bird life which are present during the
breeding period, and which have been the principal study of the author
for many years. Extraneous matter has been sedulously omitted, and
nothing permitted to appear about which there could be serious doubts of
accuracy.
“With these few preliminary remarks, we send this beautiful book out
into the world, trusting that it may meet with a cordial reception
everywhere.”
That the work does not contain anything approaching a complete “detailed
account of the habits” of a single species is evident from the most
cursory examination of the biographies. On the other hand, we are given
an amount of detail and exact data, concerning some of the most
inaccessible points connected with the breeding habits of birds, that
excite, first, admiration (for the author’s extraordinary acuteness of
observation); next, astonishment (at the possibility of attaining a
knowledge of certain peculiarities mentioned); and finally, incredulity
(regarding the reliability of the author’s statements).
To be more explicit: Not only does Mr. Gentry tell us the exact number
of days consumed in building the nest, in depositing the eggs, in
incubation, the period the young remain in the nest, and the length of
time they are afterwards fed by the parents; but he goes further and
states how much time is devoted to courting, gives the period of mating
and the duration of the honeymoon, and tells us how many days are spent
in the selection of a suitable and satisfactory site for the nest, not
omitting, in some cases, to mention which sex governs in making the
choice. A few citations, in the author’s own words, will suffice, to
demonstrate his unparalleled perspicacity in these matters.
Speaking of the Wood Pewee he says: “The assumption of matrimonial
relations, however, is not a matter that is entered into without more or
less consideration.... The ceremony of mating being over—which business
is ordinarily of short continuance, seldom lasting for a greater period
than two days—the newly-wedded pair now set out to discover a suitable
place for the building of a home. This is a matter of considerable
moment, often requiring the performance of long and extended tours of
observation and exploration. These reconnoissances generally last for a
week,.... The site being mutually agreed upon, the happy pair proceed
with all possible dispatch and diligence to construct a domicile: the
male to collect and bring in the necessary materials; the female to fix
them in their proper places.... Having finished their home, only a day
or so intervenes when oviposition becomes the controlling instinct. The
female now proceeds to deposit her complement of four eggs, which she
does on consecutive days, at the rate of a single egg daily. This is
followed, on the day succeeding the last deposit, by the trying duty of
incubation. Upon the female devolves this arduous and irksome labor.”
Of the nesting of the Catbird he tells us that “ordinarily a week or ten
days are spent in making a choice of locality.”
With the Orchard Oriole “Mating does not occur,” he says, till “more
than two weeks after the advent of the sexes.... The sexes having come
together in a wise and business-like way, with little or none of the
bluster that is customary on such occasions, a conference ensues, which
results in a temporary separation for mutual good; one bird going in one
direction and the other in an entirely opposite course. The selection of
a suitable spot for a home is the _vera causa_ of this divergence.... In
five or six days from the time of the assumption of matrimonial
relations the nest is started, and through the united efforts of both
birds for the period of a week is brought to completion.”
Of the Hummingbird he writes, “The sexes, tired as it were, of the
riotous and luxurious lives they have been leading, come together by
mutual agreement, and enter into matrimonial relations. This being
accomplished, they separate for a brief period, and each proceeds to
scour the country for miles around in quest of a suitable tree in which
to locate. When one is selected by either bird the other is summoned to
the spot to talk over, in true bird language, the merits thereof. Should
the parties differ as to the advantageousness of the site, no
quarrelling or bickering is indulged in, but, in the most friendly
manner, they separate and renew the search until one is found which
gives satisfaction.”
In his biography of the Chewink occurs the following: “The females
wholly entranced, yield to the persuasions of their would-be lords, and
conjugal relations are entered into.... But the happy couple are not yet
ready to begin nest-building. They must needs celebrate the occasion of
their marriage. Accordingly they set out on a wedding trip, so to speak,
visiting adjoining lots and thickets, and enjoying the delights and
scenes around them. This continues for four or five days, when the
lovers, thoroughly surfeited, return and quietly settle down to prosy
life.”
Such statements as the foregoing cast a shadow of suspicion upon remarks
that otherwise might be regarded as authentic, and attach to the work
the stigma of untrustworthiness.
The account of the nocturnal habits of the Virginia Rail, although the
wording is changed, savors strongly of the latter part of the 537th page
of Coues’s “Birds of the Northwest.”
Enough has been said to show that instead of becoming an authority,
worthy of place amongst the standard works on North American
ornithology, Mr. Gentry’s book on nests and eggs must inevitably find
its level alongside such unreliable and worthless productions as
Jasper’s “Birds of North America” and similar trash. In other words,
instead of a work of scientific value, we have a popular picture-book,
well-adapted for the amusement of children.—C. H. M.
=General Notes.=
DENDRŒCA PALMARUM AT SING SING, NEW YORK.—On April 29, 1882, while
collecting at this place, I killed a specimen of the true _D. palmarum_.
The bird is unusually yellow beneath, but Mr. Robert Ridgway, who kindly
compared it, says: “We have several specimens from Wisconsin and
Illinois which will match it.” It was busily engaged, when captured, in
catching winged insects in a low swampy thicket.—A. K. FISHER, M. D.,
_Sing Sing, N. Y._
NEST AND EGGS OF SETOPHAGA PICTA—A CORRECTION.—Mr. W. E. Bryant has
kindly called my attention to the fact that he described two nests and
sets of eggs of the Painted Redstart in Vol. VI of this Bulletin (pp.
176, 177). The clutch found by Mr. Stephens and mentioned by me in the
last number of the Bulletin (Vol. VII, July 1882, pp. 140, 141) is,
therefore, the third, instead of the first authentic one known. I take
this opportunity for correcting the mistake, and at the same time tender
my apology to Mr. Bryant for the inadvertent oversight of his
note.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
THE SUMMER TANAGER (_Pyranga æstiva_) IN NEW BRUNSWICK.—While staying at
Grand Manan, N. B., in June, last year, I saw in the possession of Mr.
J. F. C. Moses a Summer Tanager which had been taken there a few weeks
before. It was shot at North Head, Grand Manan, about the 12th on 14th
of May, 1881, by a boy who brought it in the flesh to Mr. Moses, by whom
it was mounted. The bird—which was undoubtedly a male, though dissection
had been neglected—was in full plumage, and showed no signs of previous
captivity. Indeed in that thinly settled region the capture of an
escaped cage bird would be an unlikely event. The specimen is now in the
collection of Mr. George A. Boardman.
This adds another case to the list of southern birds that have
occasionally found their way to the neighborhood of the Bay of Fundy.
The causes of their coming still remain hidden, and more light is needed
before the facts can be satisfactorily explained.—CHARLES F. BATCHELDER,
_Cambridge, Mass._
THE EVENING GROSBEAK IN NEW YORK.—Mr. Charles F. Earle writes me from
Syracuse, N. Y., July 11th, as follows: “On the 8th of the present month
I saw a male Evening Grosbeak (_Hesperophona vespertina_) near Marcellus
Station, Onondaga County, N. Y. Being engaged in fly-fishing at the
time, I was unable to secure the bird; but there is no question of the
identification, as I had a good view of it at reasonably close
quarters.”—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D.C._
THE BLACK-THROATED BUNTING IN FLORIDA.—Neither Professor Allen in his
“Winter Birds of East Florida,” nor Mr. Maynard in his work on the birds
of Eastern North America, includes the Black-throated Bunting (_Spiza
americana_) as an inhabitant of Florida; hence the following note of its
capture there may be worth recording. While walking along the fence row
of an old field near Fernandina on April 22d, 1881, looking for Shrikes
and Ground Doves, I heard the familiar note of this well-dressed Bunting
in a small tree near the fence. He was immediately secured, but although
I afterwards searched diligently for others, none were found.—C. W.
BECKHAM, _Bardstown, Ky._
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FISH CROW (_Corvus ossifragus_.)—During a recent
trip to Charlottesville, Albemarle Co., Virginia, I was much surprised
to find the Fish Crow exceedingly common—quite as numerous, in fact, as
the Common Crow (_C. frugivorus_). The locality in question is entirely
surrounded by mountains—Monticello and Ragged Mountains to the east and
south, the Blue Ridge only about twelve miles to the westward—and is
distant at least sixty miles from the nearest tide water.—ROBERT
RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) TAKEN IN SOUTHERN
MICHIGAN.—Two fine specimens, male and female, of the Swallow-tailed
Kite, were taken near this place, June 19, 1882, by Mr. Charles
Chittenden. When first discovered by him they were foraging about his
dove house, and causing a great commotion among the inmates.