Page:Condor20(2).djvu/52

 98 THE CONDOR Vol. XX Both parts of this statement are wrong, and the correlation implied is doubtful. The Lucy Warbler is stated (vol. xII, p. 119) to have been observed by "Dr. Gambol" on "anta Catalina Island"! Concerning the Bell Sparrow (vol. I, p. 49) the implication in regard to habitat is erroneous. The Gray Vireo is disposed of (vol. I, p. 111) in a text mention under "Bell's Vireo" as if it were a subspecies of that bird or else very similar in habits and structure--which it is most emphatically not. It is to be noted. in this connection that the whole subspecific concept is botched. Why can't mention of subspecies be omitted altogether from books intended for "popu- lar" use ! After the unmodified claims of com- pleteness, we are surprised to find that sev- eral western species are left out altogether, such as Baird Sparrow, Plain Titmouse, and Marbled Murrelet. Even whole genera are omitted, namely Catherpes (the Canyon Wrens), Aimophila (Rufous-crowned Spar- row and its relatives), and Cardellina (Red- faced Warbler). We are told in the Preface that the "tech- nical" parts of the "Birds of America" (de- scriptions and distributions) are talen from Ridgway's Birds o North and Middle Amer- ica, but modified so as to avoid the use of technical terms. Scrutiny of some of this "technical" matter, thus credited to Ridg- way, shows it to be very much abbreviated and sometimes "adapted" to an extent that we feel sure Ridgway would hardly care to accept r. esponsibility for. In a number of places we meet with most astonishing lapses in geography. For example (vol. x, p. 223), it is stated that "in southern California two local forms of this Jay [California Jay] are found"--"Belding's" and "Xantus's." Here, southern and Lower California are obvious- ly confused. I note that the name of "Walter Kenrick Fisher, Ph.D.", of Stanford University, is included in the rather large "Advi.sory Board" listed at the front of volume L Yet it cannot for a moment be supposed that this acute ornithologist lent his approval to the character in detail cf the western ornith- ology include d in this work. This illustrates another way in which efforts are made by publishers to secure an appearance of scien- tific authenticity for their books. I must now, in fairness, say that part of the western material quoted--practically the whole work is a compilation--, notably where specifically credited to lrs. Bailey and some of that to Finley, is unquestiona- bly creditable. Also it is very likely that a far greater proportion of the eastern con- tributions are correct as to fact than of western; for we see there frequent repeti- tions of such names as Chapman, Forbush and Job. As to illustrations, it is obvious that ac- cess to the excellent colored plates by Fu- ertes, which originally appeared in Eaton's Birds of New York, was the initial motive cf the present enterprise. There are 106 of these, and also five really very good colored plates of birds' eggs by Thurston. In addi- tion, there is a plethora of half-tones, these including some of the best photographic work of Finley and Bohlman, Job, and A. A. Allen. I fail to see why the editors and publishers could not have stopped here, in- stead of adding a great many more photo- graphs of ghastly mounted birds, and still more reproductions from exceedingly poor drawings. Among the latter, the pictures of Verdin, Wren-tit and Pipit (vol. I, pp. 216, 218, 170) are to my mind merely painful caricatures. Still, in the aggregate, the il- lustrations are good and the quantity is amazing. These will attract and hold the attention of the average layman irrespect- ive of the.merits, or demerits, cf the work otherwise. Returning again to the text, I wonder why it Is that scientific accuracy cannot more often enter into "popular" works on ornith- ology. Must we accept the apparent rule that "popular", that is, non-technical, ornith- ology cannot at the same time be thorough- ly scientific? My own belief is that, on the contrary, this can be attained, and it should be achieved, by just such sponsors of popu- larized ornithology as the National Associa- tion of Audubon Societies, with the great field of interest this organization has cre- ated and is so fast extending. Of course there are ten thousand "audu- bonires" who will accept the present offer- ing as the gospel, to one critical ornitholo- gist who is in a position to detect its serious faults. It may even be averred that inaccu- racies in detail count for nothing as com- pared with the main. purpose of securing and holding popular attention and thereby spreading the propagandum of bird-protec- tion and esthetic appreciation of bird-life. Perhaps. If so, my conviction is growing that the term "scientific" must be absolutely withheld from application to literature in which the publishers' aims are primarily to secure popular consumption. Of course it is a feature of added recommendation (and hence of commercial value) if people can be