Page:Condor3(5).djvu/22

 THE CONDOR I Vol. III COMMUNICATIONS. THE DECISIONS IN THE TENTH SUP- PLEMENT. Editors THE CONDOR:- The Tenth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List published in the July .4/ contains many surprises to our western ornithologists in the wholesale manner in which carefully worked out species and subspecies have been relegated to obscurity. If it were the policy of the Committee to discourage the creation of trinomials entirely our workers might well re- ceive its decision with good grace, but when it accepts a subspecies like Pipi/ofuscus carolre, whose invalidity had already been pointed out by its describer, we can only conclude that our judges sit too far away to fully appreciate the conditions which surround the western worker. Our eastern friends would not consider it strange if climatic conditions and other influ- ences produced two subspecies in a country stretching between New York and Florida. One could readily grasp the idea that a Geothlyfiis feeding and breeding in Florida might differ from one feedingand breeding iu good old New England. Now as a matter of fact we have a wider range of conditions out here in Califor- nia, and that in some cases in a section of coun- try easily covered on an ordinary map by a twenty-five cent piece. Take for instance the San Joaquin valley where there are 300 days of sunshine and a yearly rainfall of only eight inches, with a semi-arid condition existing most of the year. Compare this with the humid coast side of the range but a compara- tively short distance away with 40 inches of rainfall and only xoo days of,sunshine, pro- duelrig a damp, foggy climate. When it has been shown that a 3/[elosfiiza on the humid coast side of the range differs ma- terially in many respects: that it is only found in a given area in the breeding season, for it has never been taken elsewhere at that time; that a partial migration occurs when in the fall and winter it scatters more or less, at which times it is taken mingled with other forms of the same genus, bnt always returning to breed in its chosen habitat; when all these facts have been carefully shown, one feels that there is some basis for the claim that it deserves to be recognized as a subspecies. It is to be regretted that the very carefully prepared life zone and faunal area maps of California compiled and in use by several Cali- fornia workers have not been published for the benefit of those who are not in a position to re- alize the enormons range of conditions which exist in California owing to differences of ele: vation, or proximity to ocean in?luences. For- tunately our few systematists who are working out these problems appreciate these difficulties and are prepared to accept with good grace the decision of the Committee, knowing that it is only a question of time when these facts will be made apparent to all. One thing however is certain, .and that is our western workers have a double task in that they not only must point out a new species or subspecies, but they must also work out its whole life history, migration etc., as influenced by the peculiar topography of California, before they can hope for a ready recognition of their claims. In other words they are confronted by the necessity of a strong educational crusade along the lines noted above. Meanwhile let us not exhaust our stock of patience but rather let us hang out the sign, that in early California days, ornamented certain thriving places of business, when the knowledge of our state as a whole was as crude as is our present knowledge of its birds,--"Don't shoot the fiddler; he's doing the best he can." F.S. DAGGETT. Pasadena, Cal., Sept. z, z9oz. A DEFENSE OF BIRD HORIZONS. Editor Ti CONDOR:- My attention has recently been called to a review and criticism of lVilson Bulletin No. 33, which appeared in the March-April CONDOR. While I entirely sympathize with the critic in his efforts to guard the avilanrta of his home region against misrepresentation, I cannot rid myself of the impression that the purpose of ' A Summer Reconnoissance In The West" has been largely misconceived in his review. The very word 'reconnoissance' was chosen to indicate the rapid and necessarily incom- plete nature of the work. It would have been presumptuous on cur part if we had thought to vie in either accuracy or completeness with carefully prepared local lists. Indeed Mr. Jones expressly says in his introduction: "In rapid work of this kind there must be a con- siderable margin of error." Some few of our identifications were based entirely upon geo- graphical considerations. It is not possible, for instance, to tell the difference, in thefteld, be- tween a Samue! and a Herrmann Song Sparrow. By those who do not subscribe to the senti- ment that the only good bird is a dead bird, recourse must be had to authorities on distri- bution; and these are often meager or deficient. In view therefore of the manifest limitations of our chosen work we must modestly disclaim any intention of clashing with the local divin- ities in matters of expert identification. But after all, the list of errors which is accredited to my colleague in the article under considera- tion is easily twice too large. A word remains, perhaps, to be said in justi- fication of the task as we conceived it. With- out any intention of publishing authoritative "local lists" it nevertheless seemed worth