Page:Condor15(6).djvu/16

 204 Vol. XV IDENTIFICATION BY CAMERA By WILLIAM LEON DAWSON WITH TWO PHOTOGRAPHS BY THE AUTHOR A NATURAL rivalry---oh entirely good-natured, I trust---exists between the "gunmen" and the exponents of those more modern weapons of at- tack, the camera and the binoculars. Of course the arbitrament of the gun in your owi htmds is conclus'lve, as in- disputaile as the virtue of the dead Indian; but there be those who find less pleasure iu knock-down argulnents than in the more subtle play of the wits. Science deals with facts and her cold storage chambers of in- duction are crowded with certainties, estab- lished truths, offeli uninteresting because un- disputed and so, nearly forgotten. But the quest concerns itself with near-facts, prob- abilities, possibilities even, and lierein resides the interest of life. As instruments of re- . search in the realm of interest I submit that - the binoculars and the camera are proving' themselves superior to the gun.  Moreover, in the fact-product itself the 1' ] work of the camera at least is by no means - .  negligible. It, no more than the gun, de- --- , pends in the last analysis, upon the cred- .r.' " . ibilitv of hulnan testimony, upon the . " a honesty of the observer. You say this Ten- liessee Warbler's skin was secured in such  ii and such a place. Very well; I agree that it , is a Tennessee arbler's skin. hether it is therefore a bird of California rests with __ you. I will accept it as such on your say-so. I say that the accompanying photographs, be- lieved to include portraits of the Lesser Yel- low-legs (Totamts fiavipes)* were taken in the Estero at Santa Barbara on the 6th day of August, 93- The conclusion that these photographs really do represent the Lesser Yellow-legs in life is less obvious, less forced Pig. 57. LESSER ANI) GREATER x/EL- upon you than in the case of 3,our warbler ow-GS, VHOXOGaaVHI) O XH skin. That is a matter for vou to decide. The ESSEgO NEAR ShNh BARBARA. {hLI- data which we are able t) submit for your FORIIA, AUGUST 16, 1913. consideration are much less complete than those you offer me. I can offer only evidence which answers the tests of outline, distribution of light and shade and compara- tive size. That this has some value you mu.t admit, but I shall not blame you if yon do not find it conclusive. For, after all, the status of T. fiavipes as a bird of California must rest upon testimony, upon the reliability of a witness, ne c'est pas? p. 111}.
 * Disallowed as a bird of southern California by the latest authority (willett, Pac. Coast Avlf. no. 7. 1912,