Page:Bird-lore Vol 01.djvu/75

 

Although more books have been written about British birds than on the birds of any other region, and although Dr. Sharpe has written more bird books than any other living ornithologist, this we believe is the first treatise he has produced on the birds of his native land. He explains that the text is only a “running commentary” on the pictures, but claims that his “Systematic Index” is “the most complete record of the birds in the ‘British List’ yet published.” It enumerates 445 species of birds which, according to Dr. Sharpe, have been recorded from Great Britain. In his ‘Introduction’ he classifies these according to the manner of their occurrence, as follows: Species which have probably escaped from confinement, 14; Indigenous species, 138; Visitors from the South—regular, 35, occasional or accidental, 69; Visitors from the East—regular, 5, accidental or occasional, 38; Visitors from the North—regular, 35, occasional or accidental, 29; Visitors from the West—regular 1, occasional, 43. The latter are all American species, and the number recorded indicates how much more frequently our birds are found on the other side of the Atlantic than European birds are observed here.

The illustrations consist of colored vignettes in the text of nearly every species. They are not above criticism, but, on the whole, are excellent and form a far more certain and convenient aid to identification than the most detailed description or elaborate key. In many cases even American species of accidental occurrence are figured, and, in this connection, we are tempted to ask why British authors cannot use for our birds the names by which they are known in this country? Who would recognize the Rusty Blackbird under the name of the “Rusty Black Hang-Nest,” a misnomer in every sense of the word, or our Robin as the “American Thrush,” to cite two among numerous examples. 

 Book News.

It is exceedingly gratifying to find the American Ornithologists′ Union, as represented by Mr. Witmer Stone, the Chairman of its Committee on Bird Protection, taking so strong a stand on the question of egg-collecting. In his annual report to the Union (The Auk, XVI, January. 1899, p. 61), Mr. Stone says, “Egg-collecting has become a fad which is encouraged and fostered by the dealers until it is one of the most potent causes of the decrease in our birds. The vast majority of egg-collectors contribute nothing to the science of ornithology, and the issuing of licenses promiscuously to this class makes any law for bird protection practically useless.

“Too often boys regard the formation of a large collection of eggs or birds as necessarily the first step towards becoming an ornithologist of note; but if those who have already won their spurs will take the trouble to point out to the beginners the lines of work which yield results of real benefit to science, they will be led to see exactly how much collecting and what sort of specimens are really needed for scientific research, and not needlessly duplicate what has already been procured. Further, they will in all probability become known as original contributors to ornithological science, while as mere collectors they would bid fair to remain in obscurity.”

Mr. Stone's report is of the utmost interest to all workers for the better protection of our birds. We have not space to notice it further here, but it may be obtained by addressing him at the Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, Pa., and enclosing six cents in stamps. 