Page:Condor20(2).djvu/51

Mar.,, 1918 PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 97 however, attention may be called to the cap- tion explanatory of fig. 21 (opposite p. 610), where there is evidently a mix-up of some sort. Then too,' as regards the sentence at the foot of page 178, summing up the evi- dence in a peculiarly interesting line of ar- gument, while the point the author wishes to make is evident enough, the wording is so vague as to bear an interpretation al- most contrary to the meaning that it is in- tended to convey.--H. S. SWARTH. ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY'S "NATURAL HISTORY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE MEXICAN PORTION OF THE COLORADO DESERT" (Abstract of Proceedings, Linnaean Society of New York, nos. 24-25, 1917, pp. 43-101, pls. i-vi) is well worth the reading by anyone who is interested in the desert, be he traveller or naturalist. Murphy's "Narrative" of his month's trip south from Calexico in search of antelope for the Brooklyn Museum will furnish much information of value to the prospective visitor to that or any similar region; while the more or less blas? fre- quenter of desert country will have his memories pleas?ingiy vivified by the accu- rate and lively description of day-by-day ex- periences. Some of the comments, such as those upon the psychology of the burro, and the fearsomehess of rattlesnakes, verge upon the naive, but usually save themselves by reason of refreshing allusions, often of keen aptness. One's first experience in a new land is certainly the one to take ad- vantage of in recording impressions, and Murphy proves himself to have realized this to good purpose--aided by a ready pen. Ornithologically, we find that there are many good field observations scattered through the narrative, as also in the "An- notated List of the Birds" (pp. 80-100); for example,. upon the apparent ability of the Desert Quail to go entirely without water. This seems to be a really new idea, and should be followed up by others in a posi- tion to ascertain the facts. The "List" num- bers 134 species and is based not only upon the author's own observations but also on a previous paper by Stone and Rhoads (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1905, pp. 676- 690). The only serious criticism we can make of Murphy's work is that he should have taken Rhoads' sight determinations at face value and thus perpetuated a lot of ex- ceedingly doubtful records (see CONDOR, vIn, 1906, p. 78). Also why not as well have taken-into account W. W. Price's ar- ticle on "Some Winter Birds of the Lower Colorado Valley" (Bull. Cooper Orn. Club, L 1899, pp. 89-93), which covered nearly the same region?--J. GRINNELL. BIRDS OF AMERICA; Editor-in-Chief, T. GIL- BERT PEABSON, National Association of Audu- bon Societies. Consulting Editor, John Bur- roughs. Managing Editor, George Gladden. Associate Editor, J. Ellis Burdick. Special Contributors, Edward H. Forbush, William L. Finley, Herbert K. Job, L. Nelson Nichols. Artists, L. A. Fuertes, R. B. Horsfall, R. I. Brasher, Henry Thurston. Nature Lovers Library [vols. i-iii]. The University Soci- ety Inc.; New York [1917]; 4to, vol. L PP. xviii-]-272; vol. ii, pp. xiv-]-271; vol. iii, pp. xviii-]-289; pls. five-I-106, numerous half- tone illustrations and some line drawings, all these being scattered throughout the three volumes. Issued about November 1. 1917. I suppose there is no copyright o.n the title "Birds of America". Even so, it seems a sacrilege that this distinctive title, once used with authority, should be now appro- priated for a work which falls far behind what such a title ought to cover. In the first place, the present book deals with any approach to adequacy only with birds of the eastern half of North America north of the Mexican line; and in the second place, the treatment is at best, save pictorially, super- ficial and far from "complete", though this word is used rather blatantly in the claims for the work set forth in the Preface, In- troduction, and announcements. From a strictly scientific point of view I believe that this work, instead of advancing the pre- vious standard of ornithological output, or even maintaining it, tends to lower it. It is from the western viewpoint that the book here under review is most seriously at fault. The text, almost wherever it deals with exclusively Californian or western birds, is characterized by inconsequential verbiage where it is not actually misleading or even erroneous. I will cite some specific illustrations. The Mountain Chickadee, so widespread from the Rocky Mountains westwardly, is dismissed (vol. iii, p. 212) with one para- graph as "very similar" to its "eastern rel- ative"! The account of our common Cali- fornia Brown Towbee (vol. in, p. 61, under "Cation Towbee") is simply nonsense. The Abert Towbee (same volume, p. 62) is ac- corded just six lines of 10-point comment, the first sentence of which is: "Despite the fact that the Abert's Towbee is the largest of the plain Towbees he is extremely shy."