Page:Condor19(5).djvu/27

Sept., 1917 PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 173 conditions if his work induces their posses- sors to turn them to the light. The author has also taken much trouble to run down to their sources several questionable records, the correcting of which should be a cause for rejoicing, as for instance the record of the breeding on Santa Barbara Island of Pu[finus opisthomelas Coues, so often pub- lished as authentic, which turns out to be valueless. Except where modified by the Supplement since published, the American Ornitholo- gists' Union Check-List has been followed instead of adopting the later rulings of some of our well known investigators; but it is distinctly stated in the introduction that it was deemed the most convenient course, for the public, to do this and to give the new- est findings in the text only, without devi- ating from the Check-List in the headings of the species. This is p?obably to over- come the objections some readers may have to what may seem to them an old-fashioned method of procedure. A few errors and cmissions appear in the text, such as are practically impossible to keep out, and the author of this review is happily in a posi- tion to correct one or two, the occurrence of one at least being indirectly his own fault. The paper is divided into several chap- ters, among the titles of which are Intro- duction, Descriptions of the Islands, Prob- lems Presented by the Island Avifauna, and General Accounts of the Birds, followed by a Tabulation of the Species and Subspecies by Islands and by Manner of Occurrence, with a bibliography and index. The tabula- tions have been prepared with great care and will be found most use'ful. They are given as only approximately correct and subject to changes as our knowledge of the subject increases. While good judgement has been shown in the classifications under the head of Manner of Occurrence, the au- thor naturally expects many corrections to be made when more light has been shed upon the matters in question. Under the head of Problems Presented by the Island Avifauna, Mr. Howell touches upon some of the conditions which exist, and upon the probable reason for such con- ditions as regards the formation of the is- lands, separation from the mainland, differ- ences in flora, etc. He presents some of the problems that have arisen and suggests some theories for their solution, but does not apply them to individual races, and ad- mits that there has not as yet been suffi- cient observational work done upon the is- lands to allow us to draw definite conclu- sions concerning such problems as the effect of the changing geologic and climatic factors upon the bird life, migration, etc. It would take too long to go into much detail in this review, but a few remarks upon some of the features under the head- ing General Accounts of the Birds may not come amiss. Naturally a great deal of space could not be devoted to every species enum- erated, partly because of the size of the paper this would entail, and mostly for the reason that but little data is available con- cerning many of the birds. The notes upon the Xantus Murrelet, and upon several of the petrels are? given at some length and are of especial interest and value, as but few, if any, ornithologists have had access to all the material and notes that Mr. How- ell has unearthed. He gives the occurrence of the Greater Yellow-legs with some hesi- tation, although in the second citation (Os- burn, CO,bOa, xx, 1909, p. 137) one speci- men is recorded as shot by Beck on the South Coronado Island. There is also ex- tant a specimen, shot by J. Mailliard on Santa Cruz Island, May 1, 1898 (no. 3284, coll. J. & J. W. Mailliard), that was not mentioned in the list of birds found on Santa Cruz Island (Bull. Cooper Orn. Club, x, 1899, p. 44) for the reason that only land birds were included in that list, and the value 6f a record of such a widely distrib- uted species was not then recognized. At the time the above cited list was made out there were some quail (Lophortyx califor- nica vallicola?) upon .the island, but as they had been liberated there, and locality of their origin was unknown, they were omit- ted from the text. On page 54 of Mr. Howell's contribution, Accipiter cooperi is given in the text as list- ed by Mailliard in 1908, when it evidently should have been in 1898, a typographical error. On page 72 the statement that the ?)nly state record for the Rusty Blackbird, Euphagus carolinus (Milllet), is that of a bird shot by Linton on San Clements Island, November 20, 1908, is incorrect, as his cita- tion (3) will show, there being one in the Mailliard collection (no. Ex2185), taken by H. B. Kaeding in Amador County, December 15, 1895. The observations upon Carpoda- cus mexicanus clementis, comparing the in- sular with the mainland forms, are of espe- cial interest, and the conclusion reached that there are not sufficient grounds for re- cognition of the subspecific form clementis