112 Bird- Lore marks are not explained, they are somewliat unintelligible. After all, birds* songs are seldom a success when reduced to printer's ink. Much space is given to technical articles, one on "The Pterylosis of Podargus, with Notes on the Pterylography of the Capri - mulgi," deserving particular mention. De- scriptions of new subspecies take up a number of pages, especially the republica- tion of those scattered in other journals, and here brought together with critical notes by Dr. J. A. Allen. It is to be hoped some forms will not survive the tri- bunal of the A. O. U. committee, for just now we seem to be approaching a point where, having exhausted the possibilities of series of specimens from adjacent farms, we shall soon be driven to recognize north light and south light races, according to the rooms in which they are studied. This is no fling at careful work, but describing is a line of least resistance and attracts many who see differences so minute that they can- •not be intelligibly expressed by words. Mr. R. H. Howe, Jr. 's, "A Study of the Genus Macrorhamphus," furnishes a re- freshing exception to the multiplication of races that regularly follows examinations of large series. With 250 specimens he evolves no new race, instead reducing the two spe- cies to one with scolopaceus, a subspecies of griseus. There is room for a great deal more of this synthetical work, al- though it is not so much fun as "splitting." — Jonathan Dwight, Jr., M. D. The Condor, March- April, 1901. — The first of a series of articles on Mexican birds, by E. H. Skinner, is devoted to an account of Giraud's Flycatcher, based on observa- tions made near Tapachula, Chiapas, in extreme southern Mexico. A somewhat similar article by R. D. Lusk describes the habits of the BuflF-breasted Flycatcher in Arizona. Both are welcome contribu- tions to the scanty literature of these comparatively little known Flycatchers. Chamberlin's notes on the nests of the Western Gnatcatcher and Williams' ' Trait of the Western Robin ' (in drooping the wings while feeding) suggest interesting lilies of work for careful field observers. t)f somewhat more local interest, but none the less valuable, are two faunal papers, one on ' Rare and Unusual Occurrences at Stockton, Calif.,' by W. B. Sampson, the other a list of birds of the Pima Res- ervation, Arizona, by G. F. Breninger. Two notes on nomenclature are impor- tant to students of western birds. Rich- mond shows that the generic name of the Condor, Pseudogryplius, must give way to the shorter but scarcely more euphonius name, Gymnogyps, so that the California Condor will hereafter be known as Gym- nogyps californinnus. McGregor calls attention to an earlier name for the west- ern Blackheaded Grosbeak, described in the November number of the ' Condor ' — another instance of careless work on the part of an author who wa$ more anxious to name a new subspecies than to study its history. Under the head of communications Os- good presents arguments in favor of recog- nizing closely related forms by name, and McGregor calls attention to the desir- ability of dropping the possessive form of bird names and of securing greater uni- formity in the common names in the A. O. U. Check -List. The Cooper Club's interest in bird pro- tection is shown by a list of thirty names on the Protection Committee for 1901 — a larger committee than that appointed by the A. O. U. Fifteen members belong to the Northern Division and fifteen to the Southern Division, representing in all four- teen counties, or one-fourth of all those in the state. There is ample work for such a committee to do along educational lines, since the bill which the club supported so energetically and which passed both branches of the Legislature failed to re- ceive the Governor's approval. Bird pro- tection in California needs more general support, so that there may be no question as to the enactment of a comprehensive measure in 1903. — T. S. P. Books Received. — Other publications received for review will be noticed in Bird- Lore for August.
