Page:Condor15(5).djvu/24

 188 THE CONDOR Vol. XV skinned today measured 6 inches, and looked more. Talking of big things, as the right of a Cali- fornian, the frogs here are certainly in that category. When talking with the manager of the company in Lima, he told me that they were as big as my head. His secretary later told me that they stretched three feet or so from tip to tip; then a conductor on the road had measured one that went twenty-six inch- es from one toe-tip to another, but when I saw my first one in the lake I believed them all. It came to the surface, stuck up a head like a turtle's, took a breath the same way, and slowly swam downward as we rowed oS-er the spot. Had I had a boat hook I verily believe that it could have been hauled to the surface, as many a turtle has been, with the hook caught under the chin. . . Land birds are few. One yellow finch with a pleasant voice wakes us every m. orning, singing close by the window. It seems somewhat strange to find a species of woodpecker common up here in the treeless and shrubless hilltops, but one is often seen, calling from some rocky point or flying off over the hillsides. We expect soon to get back to sea level, where shearwaters, petrels and boobies' will take the place of flamingos, ibises and mud- hens. Sincerely, R. H. BECK. Lake ]urin, Peru, April 7, 93. PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED A "CEcc LST or TE BIRDS OF THE SE- QUOIA AND GENERAL GRANT NATIONAL PARKS."--A briefly annotated list with the above title appears in a 24-page circular of "General Information Regarding Sequoia and General Grant National Parks," issued from the Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior. This list has been printed, in almost identical form save for typographical errors, in the circular for at least the past two seasons, to the reviewer's knowledge, 1912 and 1913, pages 7 to 15 in the former, 10 to 17 in the latter The list is notable for its length, 184 species being enumerated. The annotations are limited to one- to six-word comments upon seasonal status and relative abundance. The contribution is further striking in the large proportion of improbable occurrences, this furnishing the stimulus for the present critical review. A provoking thing about the list. is its presentation in a government publication, showing unmistakable evidences of having passed the official scrutiny of ornithological authorities at Washington. And yet it has failed of that censorship which must ever be exercised in regard to the output of amateur Gbservers, if our literature is to be kept up to scientific standard. We note a number of generic names as well as subspecific combinations, which give no hint of derivation from the standard A. O. U. Check-List. The tell-tale Tyro (for the Barn Owl) with little doubt in our minds emanates from a certain Washington office. Other significant evidence is afforded by Balanosphyra, Accipiter velox paciticus, Horizopus, and Sayornis nigricans serolater. In fact the guilt for allowing such a question- able lot of records to slip into print would seem not difficult to fix! The two parks named are in the Sierra Ne- vada of Tulare and Fresno counties, Calif- fornia. The more dubious of the records are as follows: Florida caerulea, "rare winter visitant" (no previous record for Califor- nia !); Zamelodia ludoviciana, "very rare"; Sialia mecicana anabelae, "'very rare mer resident"; Dendroica occidentalis, "win- ter migrant"; Chaetura vauci, "summer resi- dent"; Pinicola enucleator caliornica, '.'com- mon resident"; Junco oregangs shu[eldti, "winter migrant"' (no satisfactory record for the State 1); Bombycilla cedrorum, "common summer resident"; Pipilo maculatus monta.us, "winter visitant"; Aimophila ruticeps ruti- ceps, "winter visitant". The list is stated to have been "compiled and identified by Walter Fry, ranger in charge." The reviewer has corresponded with Mr. Fry at some length in an effort to secure scientifically acceptable verifications of some of the more important identifications. The information Was elicited that either the "species in the list were 'determined by sight identification at very close range}" or that specimens were shot but in no case saved-- an extremely unfortunate circumstance, especially as regards the "Little Blue Heron." It should' here be stated that the author of the list is well known 'to be an efficient of- ricer, and a man or more than ordinary acu- men as an observer i but' even so, who of us would trust himself to put upon record such extraordinary things unless backed up by specimens preserved? Is it not incumbent upon naturalists in au- thority, especially those in connection with the governmental departments, to properly edit, or otherwise render innocuous, the con- tributions from enthusiastic amateurs? The latter are increasing in numbers--a very de- sirable thing--but our science will suffer just in proportion as their questionable obser- vations are allowed to assume apparently au- thentic position in our literature.--J. GRnq- NELL