Page:Condor13(4).djvu/27

July, 1911 PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 141 in January as established by Mr. Bowles, so that the criticism of this and similar cases does not appear fairly deserved. Mr. Bowles' rec- ord in itself is, however, of decided value in adding a definite station to our detailed data on the distribution of the bird. In the second place the obvious fact, appar- ent to anyone studying distribution of North American birds, that very many good records were overlooked by the compilers of the Check- List, resulting in inadequate 'statements of range, would fully warrant several of Mr. Bowles' "extensions". Here, however, Mr. Bowles might have clearly indicated whether his contribution was to serve as a criticism of the Check-List, or as an actual addition to known facts. (By "known" is meant pub- lished, and hence available to the public.) Thus, Passerculus roslralus rostralus had been previously recorded from Santa Barbara (Heer- mann, Pac. R. R. Rep. X, 1859, p. 46) and even as far north as Santa Cruz (Mailliad, CONDOR VI, Jan. 1904, p. 16). In the third place the difficulties in the way of proper sub-specific designation have evi- dently lead to a difference in employment of names, and so have given rise to "extensions" of range in some cases probably warranted, in others not. The subspecific status of any bird in a given region cannot be safely considered as established upon the snap judgment of even the foremost of experts, nor upon conclusions reached by any person with scanty material' or limited experience in systematic ornithology. Thus in 2Psallriparus the determination of the correct name of the form at Santa Barbara would depend on a careful study of normal variation in series of specimens not only from Santa Barbara but from other geographic areas and taken at all seasons; also upon nomenela- tural considerations based upon a study of lit- erature with a view to ascertaining the appli- cability of the various proposed names. The same would be true for Charnaea and Pipilo. Mr. Bowles' remarks in regard to the status of the Bush-Tit and Wren-Tit at Santa Barbara, give one to nnderstand that the author thinks it probable that in each case /wo subspecies may exist in the vicinity, one being migratory. In our experience such a condition in these species is scarcely possible. Neither of the birds in question is migratory beyond a very limited local movement. The difference noted in specimens will probably be found to fall within the range of variation due to seasonal, age, or individual factors. As of fannal interest and perhaps, worthy of different .interpretation than that suggested by Mr. Bowles, the Stephens Fox Sparrow is re- corded from an elevation of 3000 feet "in the hills of Santa Barbara County", under date of August 30. This is probably a transient station, and not a breeding station. It is not the "farthest north record" for the species, as it is well known to breed in the high Tran- sition zone on the north side of Mr. Pinos, lat. 34 50' (see Auk XXII, Oct. 1905, p. 388). This locality is what is called "Tejon'.' Moun- tains in the A. O. U. Check-List. It is extremely unfortunate that Mr. BWles put i?inicola enuclealor californica on record from southern California upon such inadequate evidence as that submitted. The occurrence of the species at any season at so low an elevation as 3000 feet anywhere in California is in itself exciting of comment. But when we consider that the species has never been recorded in California south of the head of the San Joaquin river, in Madera or Fresno County (Fisher, N. Am. Fauna No. 7, May 1893, p. 79), and never, winter or summer, below the Canadian life zone, a record like the present one de- nmuds the severest test. The California Pine Grosbeak is a species the occurrence of which anywhere under such zonal conditions as the "hills of Santa Barbara County", to be thor- oughly established would have to-be backed up by the taking of specimens at the very least. What makes this record the limit of badness is that it is couched in full scientific form and will have to be synonymized, but under What ? If under ]nicola, an extra citation will be needed--with a question mark. Another criticism of Mr. Bowles' paper is that some of the facts offered have been pub- lished fully by himself or others elsewhere; for example, in the case of Steg"anopus tricolor at Santa Barbara. Is it justifiable to repeat rec- ords and thus multiply citations except where a general review of the status of a species is attempted? Now, whatever points I have indicated above, whether they be accepted by my readers as well taken or not, are nmde with their gen- eral bearing in view, and nol with the intent of personally "scorching" Mr. Bowles ! This should be clearly understood by the casual reader. In fact, Mr. Bowles told me some of the things he proposed to put on record long before this Auk article was sent in, and, know- ing that I might take exceptions, invited me to publish my criticisms freely. Not one of us is beyond the possibility of making egregious errors, and never will be. But let us all ex- ercise caution and the extreme of care in put- ting our supposed facts o? record. I have been guilty myself of making a number of bad records (see CoNx)oR IV, Jan. 1902, p. 17). It gives a distinctly uncomfortable feeling that I never quite escape from. Perhaps this in- dividual sensitiveness is a fortunale circum- stance for our science. If so, would that it were a trait common to'all bird students l--