REVIEWS

EDITED BY M. ROSS LEIN AND BRUCE M. BEEFILER

Thefollowing reviews express the opinions of the individualreviewers regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and value of thebooks they review. As such,they are subjective evaluations and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of theeditors or any officialpolicy of the AOU.--Eds.

A SPECIAL REVIEW: PETERS' "CHECK-LIST OF gIRDS OF THE WORLD" AND A HISTORY OF AVIAN CHECKLISTS

Walter J. Bock

Check-list of Birds of the World: A Continuation With the publication of Vol. XI of "Peters' Check- of the Work of JamesL. Peters,vol. XI.--Ernst Mayr list," work on the mostcomprehensive and exhaust- andG. William Cottrell(Eds.). 1986. Cambridge, Mas- ing project in avian systematicscame to a close some sachusetts,Museum of ComparativeZoology. xii + 60 yearsafter it was startedand almost50 yearslater 638 pp. Vol. XVI, ComprehensiveIndex. Raymond than Wetmore'sinitial estimation.As icing on a de- A. Paynter Jr. 1987.Cambridge, Massachusetts, Mu- liciouscake, we were presentedwith another useful seumof ComparativeZoology. xi + 550 pp.--Some- volumein this seriesin the form of a previouslyun- time late in 1928, before the birth of most ornithol- planned Vol. XVI, The ComprehensiveIndex. Rather ogistsliving today, JamesLee Petersof the Museum than a standardreview of these volumes, which would of ComparativeZoology decided to preparea mul- be boring to both the reader and me, I presenta tivolume "Handlist" of birds of the world. In a letter historicaloverview of the "Peters'Check-list" project to Alexander Wetmore (28 January 1929), Peters in- and somecomments on earlier synopsesof birds. formed his old friend that "For a further dissertation Work on Vol. XI, edited by ErnstMayr and G. Wil- upon the postal servicebetween Washingtonand liam Cottrell,began in the 1950sbut waslong delayed Cambridge,I refer you to a little correspondencebe- for a seriesof reasons,partly becausethe groupsin- tweenC. W. R.[ichmond]and myself.If anyoneshould cluded--the Sylviidae, Muscicapidae(sensu stricto), ask you, (but not unlessthey do) you might inform Maluridae, Acanthizidae,Monarchidae, and Eopsal- them that the handlistis now in activepreparation triidae--constitutesome of the most taxonomically and the manuscriptof the first volume about3% com- difficult families of oscine birds. It is the thickest vol- pleted" (WetmorePapers, General Correspondence, ume of the entire Check-list,100 pageslonger than Box 49, Smithsonian Inst. Archives). (Note: All ref- the revisedVol. I and almosttwo timeslarger than erences will be to material in the Smithsonian Insti- any of the first seven volumes. G. E. Watson was re- tution Archives unless otherwise stated.) Wetmore sponsiblefor the Holarctic and Oriental forms of the replied,"With the new handlistunder way you will Sylviidae, Muscicapidae,and Monarchidae. M. A. have somethingto occupyyourself in sparetimes Traylotcovered the Africanmembers of thesegroups from now until about1940 so that I wish you joy" plus the Platysteiridae,and E. Mayr the Australasian (WetmorePapers, Box 49). The wish wassincere; Alex membersof thesegroups plus the Maluridae, Acan- Wetmoreand JimPeters were closefriends from early thizidae,and Eopsaltriidae.A commentabout the last 1921,when they met in Argentina,and they referred name is in order. The Australian robins had tradi- to eachother as "Doc" and "PatagoniaPete," respec- tionally been placedin the Muscicapidae(sensu lato) tively. But Wetmorewas too optimisticby far in his and rarely in a separatefamily-level taxon.I agree estimateof the finishing date. Only four volumes, with the decisionto recognizethis group as a distinct throughthe Coraciiformes,were completedby 1940 family, but disagreewith the name used.The name when Petersjustifiably received the BrewsterMedal EopsaltriidaeMathews, 1946 (type genusEopsaltria of the AmericanOrnithologists' Union at the annual Swainson,1832) lacks priority with respectto Pe- meeting. At the time of his death in 1952, Petershad troicidaeMathews, 1919-1920(type genus Petroica completedseven volumes, not quitethrough the sub- Swainson,1830); moreover, the genericname Petroica oscines.These volumes represented just under half is the oldestone in the family. No basisexists for of the speciesof birdsand considerablyless than half claimingwell-established usage for Eopsaltriidaebe- of the taxaeventually included in the work.Happily, fore1961, when priority was extended to family-group the two organizingeditors who continued"Peters' namesunder the new Codeof ZoologicalNomencla- Check-list,"James Greenway and Ernst Mayr, had the ture.Hence, the valid namefor this groupshould be goodfortune to completetheir task in 1986.My copy the Petroicidae,with the Eopsaltriidaea junior syn- of Vol. XI is inscribedby Ernst Mayr, "At last the onym. millstoneis off my neck"--a majorunderstatement. Creditfor Vol. XVI, TheComprehensive Index, must 629 The Auk 107:629-648. July 1990 630 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

go to RaymondPaynter, who conceivedthe idea and known at the time of publicationof a volume which was responsiblefor the whole project. The MCZ Bird has been omitted. But there have been additions and Departmentsecretary, Ms. Alison Pirie, keyedall the other corrections.The genusPsilorhamphus, placed in namesinto the computer. She has the distinction of the Formicariidaeby Cory and Hellmayr, was be- beingperhaps the only personto havetyped the names lieved by Peters to be a member of the Sylviidae. of all avian taxa, as recognizedby the authorsof Pe- Subsequently,P16tnick showed it to be a memberof ters' Check-list. Volume XVI is an index to all of the the Rhinocryptidae(Vol. VII), and Psilorhamphuswas taxa included in the 15 current volumes of Peters'. It so treated in the Addenda (Vol. X: 456). The genus covers the second edition of Vol. I, but not the first Hypositta,long believedto be a memberof the Sittidae edition. This last decision is unfortunate, as it would but shown by Dorst to belong to the Vangidae, is have been useful to have the names in the original treated under the heading "Genus Incertae Sedis" first volume included. The volume comes with a (Vol. XII: 124), just before the Sittidae. The two non- handy,two-sided laminated index card to the families Australian speciesof the genus Cracticusare covered and subfamilies.I urge the MCZ to make this card in the Addenda(p. 284) of Vol. XV, not with the rest available separately,as many ornithologistswill like of the genus(see footnote, p. 167).The genusNeospiza, to have several copiesand it would be useful to be known only from two old specimensfrom S•o Tom6, able to replace lost cards.A single index volume pre- was first included in the Ploceidae (Vol. XV: 32) and cludesthumbing through the indices of severalvol- later in the Carduelinae (Vol. XIV: 231, see footnote). umes. Paynter points out that it is a credit to the This is the only instanceof a taxon listed twice in the authors and editors of the Check-list that he did not Check-list. find a single homonym in the approximately 55,000 entitiesin the index. He alsoincludes a brief history A HISTORY OF EARLIER SYNOPSES of "Peters' Check-list." JamesL. Peters was responsiblefor the first seven Biologistsworking with any group of organisms volumes of the Check-list, published from 1931 to havealways been keenly interested in a completelist 1951. All the nonpasserinebirds and six families of of speciesof that group, but even today this goal is New World suboscines were covered for a total of 106 not easyto reach.Avian biologistsare mostfortunate. families. After Peters' death (19 April 1952) the re- Goodsynopses of birdsof the world were available sponsibility for the remaining volumes passedto earlyin the developmentof ornithologyas a science, Greenwayand Mayr, who organizedthese volumes but these works are unequal in their coverage.Nei- and invited numerous ornithologists to undertake ther Erwin Stresemannin his "Ornithology from Ar- work on the diverse families. The remaining eight istotle to the Present" (1975, Cambridge, Massachu- volumes and revised Vol. I were edited by Mayr, setts,Harvard Univ. Press)nor Paul Farber in his "The Greenway, Paynter, Traylor, and Cottrell. Melvin Emergenceof Ornithology as a ScientificDiscipline: Traylor was the non-MCZ personwho contributed 1760-1850" (1982, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Reidel) most to the completion of the Check-list. Mr. G. W. presenteda detailed analysisof the history of syn- Cottrell, a retired librarian from the Harvard Librar- opsesof birds of the world; indeed, theseworks are ies, worked painstakingly since 1960 to check cita- scarcelymentioned. Stresemann's account is mostun- tions and other details for the last several volumes. even in its coverage,especially of English-language The following listing providesonly a generalidea of publications,and he did not mentionbooks such as the magnitude of each individual's contribution be- Gray'sseveral Handlists. A historyof synopsesis not causefamily sizesvary greatlyand someworkers were an easytask. Most of the publishedlists provide little coauthors,but it is appropriateto recognizethose who to no information on why the author undertookthe contributed to the post-Petersvolumes. They are D. work, perhapsbecause the reasonswere believedto Areadon (7 families), E. R. Blake (4), J. Davis (1), J. be self-evident. The necessarydocumentation for a Delacour(1), H. G. Deignan (6), J.Dorst (6), R. A. Falla detailedhistory of synopsesof the birds of the world (1), J. C. Greenway Jr. (11), T. R. Howell (1), P. A. may not even exist in archives.An analysisof the Johnsgard(2), C. Jouanin (4), M.P. Kahl (4), G. E. extantpublications reveals a definite pattern in the Lowery Jr. (1), E. Mayr (25), A. H. Miller (1), B. L. developmentof their coverageof birds,such that their Monroe Jr. (1), R. E. Moreau (2), J. L. Mougin (11), R. historycan be divided into four periods. B. Payne (1), R. A. Paynter Jr. (8), J. L. Peters(3), A. 1) The initial period.--Startingwith the many edi- L. Rand (6), S. D. Ripley (2), F. Salomonsen(2), D. W. tions of Linnaeusand continuing until 1840,the ear- Snow (6), J. Steinbacher (1), R. W. Storer (4), E. Stre- liest synopses,such as Buffoh's"Histoire Naturelie semann(4), M. A. Traylor (9), C. H. Vaurie (4), G. E. des Oiseaux" (1770-1786), Brisson's"Ornithologie" Watson (2), C. M. N. White (1), and J. T. Zimmer (1). (1760), Latham's "A General Synopsisof Birds" (3 My apologiesto anyone I missedor for errors in the vols., 1781-1785)and "Index Ornithologicus"(1790), contribution of any author. Illiger's "ProdromusSystematis Mammalium et Avi- The overall coverageof "Peters'Check-list" is ex- urn" (1811), Temminck's "Manuel d'Ornithologie" cellent. To date, no one has identified any species (1815; 2nd ed., 1820-1839),Rafinesque's "Analyse de July1990] Reviews 631

la Nature, ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps Or- Gray's contemporary,Prince CharlesLucien Bo- ganis•s" (1815), Vieillot's "Analyse d'une Nouvelle naparte,was also devoted to the preparationof a syn- Ornithologie•l•mentaire" (1816), Cuvier's "Le R•gne opsisof birds.He publisheda large numberof papers Animal" (1816; 2nd ed., 1829), Lesson's "Manuel on the classification of birds and of individual orders d'Ornithologie" (2 vols., 1828),and Swainson's"Nat- and families, and finally his opus "ConspectusGe- ural History and Classificationof Birds"(2 vols., 1836- nerum Avium" (1850-1857, Leiden). Again in this 1837),examined the overall systemof birds, but gave synopsis,stress was placed on the genera of birds, most attention to orders and families. These works with an extensive,but not necessarilycomplete, list includedan analysisof variation within the higher- of species.Unfortunately, Bonapartedied before he level taxaas reflected in the known generaand species. finishedthis work, and it was not completedby any Although someauthors endeavoredto list all of the other worker. Bonapartebased his synopsisof birds generaand speciesknown to them, little attempt was on examination of specimensin most of the major made to prepare a complete list of avian genera and collectionsof Europe,including the BritishMuseum, species.Indeed, in these early decadesof systematic and, earlier in his life, on collections in the United ornithology, suchattempts would have been impos- States,mainly the PhiladelphiaAcademy of Science. sible becauseof inadequatedistribution of pertinent Bonapartefrequently modified his conclusionson literature, lack of goodrepresentative collections, and avianclassification, certainly on the family-grouplevel frequent duplicate description of the same species. and presumablyequally on the genericlevel. He was Thus, until 1840ornithologists could readily prepare inconsistentin nomenclature,coined many new names a completelist of recognizedfamily-level groups,but for the same family-level groups and genera, and not of generaand species. therebycaused great confusion for contemporaryand 2) The Gray-Bonaparteperiod.--The next period be- later ornithologists.It is not clear whether his "Con- gan in 1840 with G. R. Gray's "A list of the genera of spectus"should be consideredas his final thoughts birds,with an indicationof the typicalspecies of each on avian classificationbecause Bonaparte published genus"(lst ed. 1840,2nd ed. 1841,London). His three- a seriesof classificationsof avian families during the volume "The genera of birds: Comprisingtheir ge- 1850s in which he modified his conclusions from those neric characteristics, a notice of the habits of each in the "Conspectus"and introducedmany new names. genusand an extensivelist of speciesreferred to their Bonaparte'spaper "Conspectus Systematis Ornitholo- several genera" (1844-1849, London) followed. His giae" (1854, Annales SciencesNaturelies, Zoologie "Catalogueof the generaand subgeneraof birds con- [Paris],ser. 4, vol. 1: 105-152) is the last completeand tained in the British Museum" (1855, London) came perhapsthe beststatement of his ideason the system next, and finally his opus, the "Handlist of genera of birds,but it differsfrom the systemhe usedin his and speciesof birds, distinguishing those contained "Conspectus." in the British Museum" (1869-1871, London). Gray An importantindependent synopsis is Sundevall's provided some information on his intent. He stated "Methodi Naturalis Avium Disponendarum Tenta- in his 1840 list that it was desirable to have a proper men" (1872, Stockholm;translated into English and classification and nomenclature as the basis for the republished as "Sundevall's Tentamen," 1889, Lon- rearrangementof the ornithologicalcollection of the don, R. H. Porter). It was based on his earlier "Or- BritishMuseum (Natural History). Gray attemptedto nithologisktSystem" (1836, Kongl. VetenskapsAca- clarify and synonymizeall generic names in orni- demiens Handlingar for 1835: 43-130). Sundevall's thology, and thereby to provide a complete list of analysiswas derived from examinationof avian gen- genera.He included many species,but made no state- era in the Stockholm Museum, to which he added ments as to the completenessof this part of his anal- many taxafrom the literature. He stated(1889, p. x) ysis.In 1855Gray repeatedthat this catalogueof gen- that only a very smallnumber of principalgenera are era was to provide a complete list of genera and missing.Other than the type speciesof genera,species subgeneraof birds, but he made no statementabout were not listed. species.Finally, in his "Handlist" Gray wrote that it The period from 1840 to 1870 was dominated by was to be a "complete list of all genera with their Gray and Bonaparte,and no other ornithologistat- subdivisionsand also a comprehensivelist of the tempted to prepare a complete list of avian species. speciesof birds." He statedthat it includes2,195 gen- Knowledgeof birdshad advanced sufficiently for these era and 11,162 species.It is curious that Gray used workersto feel securein presentinga completelist the word "comprehensive" to describe the list of of genera,but not of species. species,which indicated that the analysisof avian The first worker to claim to have published a one- specieswas broadly basedbut not necessarilycom- volume cataloguethat containedall speciesof birds plete.The cataloguesand handlistsprepared by Gray was Adolphe Boucard.Boucard was a Frenchamateur were basedlargely on studyof collectionsin the Brit- who lived much of his life in England (Isle of Wight) ish Museum plus, of course,information in the lit- and publishedhis major works in English. In 1876 erature. Gray's work served as the precursorto the Boucardpublished his "CatalogusAvium" (London); later monumental work of Sharpe. whether he was even closeto this professedgoal of 632 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

"all species"is another matter. His "CatalogusAvi- servedas the foundationfor similar publications.A1- urn" contained2,456 genera and ! !,03 ! species,which phonseDubois wrote his "SynopsisAvium. Nouveau is remarkably similar to the numbers in Gray's Manuel d'Ornithologie" (1899-!904, Brussels)based "Handlist" and suggeststhat it may have been based on the "Catalogue of the Birds in the British Mu- closelyon Gray'swork. Boucardalso discussed a plan seum";he recognized!6,478 speciesand varietiesof to preparea catalogueof all knowngenera and species birds in 2,252 genera. of birds,but thiswas never published. He did produce 4) ThePeters period.--For 20-30 yearsafter the end the "Generaof Humming Birds,being also,A Com- of the Sharpeera, no advanceswere made on a world- plete Monographof TheseBirds" (1893-1895,Lon- wide avian checklist.The Petersperiod spansmost don). of the 20th century; its core, from !93! until !986, 3) TheSharpe period.--The next period, 1870-1910, coincideswith the appearanceof the first and last was dominatedby RichardBowdler Sharpe, who su- volumesof "Peters'Check-list." The period wasdom- pervised the preparation of the "Catalogueof the inatedby this work and henceby J. L. Petersand the Birds in the British Museum" (27 vols., 1874-1898, later editors,of which ErnstMayr is the preeminent London).This first completelist of the avian species figure. This latestsynopsis represents the final step of the world wasaccomplished in a periodof 25 years, in the hopesof ornithologiststo completea list of all mainly by Sharpe'sefforts as an author, editor, and living avian taxabecause all subspecieswere includ- managerof the entire project.The magnitude of this ed. The descriptionof geographicvariation in birds accomplishmentcan be appreciatedonly if one re- with the use of subspeciestaxa and a trinomial no- alizes that the "Catalogue"includes completesyn- menclature,which beganwith Hermann Schlegelin onymies,literature citations, careful descriptions of 1844("Kritische •lbersicht der europ•iischen Vfgel," the plumagesand distributionof each species,and a Leiden) and was expandedgreatly by the American listing of all specimensin the British Museum. The ornithologistsduring the secondhalf of the !9th cen- cataloguewas modeled on the "Catalogueof the Fish- tury and laterby Harteft for Eurasia,was finally re- es in the British Museum," edited by Albert Gtinther. flectedalmost a century later in a global checklistof Gtinther,Keeper of Zoology,appointed Sharpe head birds. of the bird collectionsin 1872 after Gray's death. The early part of the Petersperiod saw many im- Sharpe must have begun work on his new "Cata- portant advancesin regional works. These include logue" directly on his appointment becausethe first theseveral editions of theAOU Check-list,Ridgway's volume appearedjust two years later. The "British "Birds of North and Middle America," Cory-Hell- Museum Catalogue"is a multiauthor work. The au- mayr's"Birds of the Americas,"Hartert's "V6gel der thoritiesof the BritishMuseum realized immediately pal'fiarktischenFauna," Baker on Indian birds, and that the task was too large for Sharpe to complete Mathews on Australasianbirds, among others. These alone and provided funds for associatesto work on works were not based on a single standard classifi- this project. No soonerwas the "British Museum Cat- cationbecause Sharpe's "Catalogue" was badly out- alogue"completed than Sharpewrote his "Hand-list datedbefore it was completed.Starting in the !870s, of the Genera and Speciesof Birds" (5 vols., 1899- youngerornithologists increasingly accepted the con- 1909; Index, 1912; London). Both works are the direct ceptof the subspeciesand usedthe trinomialsystem descendentsof the publicationsof G. R. Gray, but to describegeographic variation in birds. With the they representa further stepin the questfor a com- workof a smallgroup of avianmorphologists-system- plete list of the known taxaof birdsbecause all known atiststhat includedT. H. Huxley, W. K. Parker,A. H. speciesof birdswere included.These synopses were Garrod, W. A. Forbes,F. Beddard,W. P. Pycraft, R. based largely on the bird collectionsin the British W. Shufeldt,and especiallyH. Gadowand M. Ftir- Museumplus, of course,information in the literature. bringer, great advanceswere made in understanding The classificationused in the "Catalogue" was old the relationshipsand classificationof avian orders and dated to the early decadesof the 19th century. and families.Yet no one at any majorcenter of sys- Sharpepresented a new classificationof birds in his tematicornithology in the first decadesof the 20th addresson "A review of recentattempts to classify centurytook stepsto producethe neededreplacement birds" (1891, Budapest)to the Second International for Sharpe's"Catalogue." Major exploratorysurveys OrnithologicalCongress. The revisedclassification was and collectionswere being madein many partsof the usedby Sharpein his "Hand-list," so that this aspect world. Workers, such as Stresemann and Rensch in of his systemwas modernized. To the end of his days, Berlinand Chapman,Chapin, and othersin New York, Sharpe rejectedthe subspeciesconcept and insisted were deeply involved in applying new conceptsof on a binomial systemin the "British Museum Cata- geneticsand evolution to avian systematicsand dis- logue" and his "Hand-list." Many of the speciesrec- tribution.Perhaps most of theseworkers understood ognized were geographicrepresentatives (=present- all too clearly the enormousundertaking involved in day allospeciesand subspecies).A totalof 2,8!0 genera replacing the "Catalogue"and understoodthat start- and !8,939species are treatedin Sharpe's"Hand-list." ing it would end any other researchthey might wish Sharpe'sworks became the standardimmediately and to do. In any case,the beginning of the next step in July1990] Reviews 633 the developmentof synopseswas delayed for almost port of the MCZ for 1925-1926,suggesting that he 30 years after completion of the "British Museum was finally placedon the museum'spayroll. In 1928 Catalogue."Two majoradvances were to characterize Peterswas appointedAssistant Curator of Ornithol- the next step in avian synopses,namely the useof a ogy, and becameCurator in 1932 upon the death of new classificationand sequenceof orders and fami- Bangs.Peters was originally a field-manand collector, lies, and the acceptanceof the subspeciesconcept. but he was primarily an alpha-level taxonomist.His Perhapsit was beneficial that a new synopsiswas interestswere at the speciesand subspecieslevel. He delayed for three decades.This provided sufficient was little interested in generic systematicsand gen- time for ornithologiststo consolidatenew morpho- erally used relatively narrow generic limits, as was logical and other information into a revisedclassifi- typical for the period. He adoptedwithout change cation and to combine the allopatric taxa listed in the ordinal and familial classification of Wetmore. Sharpe's"Catalogue" into polytypic species. Peterswas deeply involvedin zoologicalnomencla- A natural progressionin the coverageof synopses ture and relied heavily on the nomenclatural deci- of birds took place as empirical knowledge of birds sions of Richmond, Mathews, and others. He was a increasedand systematictheory changedwith better strict priorist in nomenclature,as were many at that understanding of organic evolution, genetics, and time. Peters was a member of the International Com- ecology. The modificationof worldwide synopses, missionof ZoologicalNomenclature and waselected from thosecovering only ordersand familiesto those Presidenta few yearsbefore his death. dealing with all genera,began in 1840, followed by Thecard catalogue.--Most important for the decision Sharpe's"Catalogue," which coveredall species(1875), to begin work on a new checklistwas the existence and finally by Peters'"Check-list," which coveredall of the "cardcatalogue" of the MCZ Bird Department. subspecies(1931), and is in fairly close concordance This cataloguewas startedin 1923 (not 1921, as im- with the time when the taxaat eachsuccessively low- plied by Paynterin hisintroduction) and was the first er-level categorybecame reasonably well known on majortask assigned to Petersas a full-time (in-resi- a worldwide scale. Reflection on this development dence) volunteer in the bird department. In a letter indicates that it would not have been possible for to A. Wetmore (Wetmore Papers,26 February 1923), Gray or Bonaparteto include all speciesof birds in Peters writes, "On March 1, I am due to start on a their handlists, nor would it have been possiblefor card catalogueof the birds in the MCZ. Somejob. subspeciesto be listed in Sharpe's"Catalogue" even [JohnC.] Phillipsestimates 2 years;my guessis 5 years if he had acceptedthis concept.This simpleempirical and 2 mos!Whether it will be possibleto break away correlation presumably holds for all groups of organ- for any field work during the cataloguingperiod I isms,and mostlikely it is still not possibleto prepare, don't know. Possiblymy daysin the field are over,a even today, a worldwide checklistof all subspecific mostdismal prospect to contemplate."Successive let- taxa for most classesand orders of living organisms. ters repeat the sameplaintive tale, with the estimate of the time required for completion continuing to DEVELOPMENT OF PETERS' CHECK-LIST increase. In a letter dated 4 September 1924, Peters writes "I figure on completing it by 1932 or later, What is interestingis why and how Petersdecided mostly later." And almosta year later in a letter to to do what othershad not and why he was successful. Wetmoreon 5 August 1925,Peters writes, "The card Some but not all of these matters were covered by catalogueseems to be destinedto be a life work. I Paynterin his introductoryremarks in Vol. XVI. have cardedover 22,000birds using for that purpose Petersat theMuseum of ComparativeZoology.--A few about 16,000 cards of all types and have reached p. words should be said about James Lee Peters (1889- 216 of the first vol. of the [=Sharpe's]Handlist!" This 1952; for details see Wetmore's Memorial, 1957, Auk is quite an achievementas the birdsof the world were 74: 167). After he graduated from Harvard College in covered in five volumes of this handlist. Little did 1912, Peters spent the next decade doing fieldwork Petersknow how right he wasand that thiscard index and collecting for the Biological Survey and for the was to be his life work. He rarely returned to the field Museum of Comparative Zoology, with a 2-year stint and was still working on his "Check-list," which de- in the U.S. Army in World War I. In early 1921 he veloped from the card file, at his death on 19 April spentseveral months in the field with AlexanderWet- 1952,29 yearslater. The Annual Reportfor 1927-1928 more, and the two formed a closefriendship. While mentioned that a clerical assistanthad been assigned he was a studentat Harvard, Petersmet Outram Bangs, to the cardproject and would relieve Petersof much Curator of Ornithology in the Museum of Compar- drudgery,and the cardingwould go muchfaster. The ative Zoology, and subsequentlyPeters worked as a card cataloguewas not "completed"until the 1940s, volunteer at the MCZ whenever he was in Cam- and wasconstantly updated with acquisitionsof new bridge. In 1921 he was appointed an Associateof the specimensin the MCZ and with changesin taxonomy museum (unpaid of course)and started as a full-time, and nomenclature. All work on it terminated in 1961. resident volunteer in 1923. Peters was first listed as The card cataloguewas moved from its prominent a member of the Bird Department in the Annual Re- positionin the hall just outsidethe door of the cu- 634 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

rator's office to a back collection room where it sits, interested,if at all, in the card catalogue.It definitely largely unused,as a monument to the Check-listand was not Peters' idea becausehe clearly hated this to precomputerattempts to include all avian speci- task,as reflectedby commentsin numerousletters to mens in a major collectionin a data bank. Wetmore. Peters,as a young man in the 1920s,would This card catalogueis a repositoryfor information have preferred to spend most of his life in the field on the known speciesand genera of birds, and on collectingbirds, not in the museumorganizing spec- the specimensin the MCZ collection. It is a primitive imens into a card catalogue.Only when he had con- version of what is done now with computersinstead siderabletime invested and could see the possibility of paper file cardsarranged and rearrangedby hand. of converting the catalogueinto a worldwide check- In a letter to C. W. Richmond (28 February 1927,Rec- list did Peters appear to reconcile his career to work- ords, Division of Birds), Peters described the cata- ing on this "most dismal prospect." logue: "This is a catalogue of the collection at the The MCZ: its collectionand library.--At the time the M.C.Z. based on the arrangement of Sharp's [sic] Check-listproject was started,the MCZ possessedthe Handlist. In cataloguingany group we have first gone fourth largest ornithological collection in the coun- over the zoologicalrecord to bring the literature up try. More important, the collection was an excellent to date, noting the description of new forms, rele- representativecollection of birds of the world. Fur- gations to synonymy, changes of name, etc. When ther, Cambridge was within easy reach of the large this is done I have gone over each speciesthat we collectionsin New York, Philadelphia, and Washing- have very carefully, identifying and bringing iden- ton. Most important were the excellent libraries in tificationsup to date when necessary.In the arrange- the MCZ and elsewherein Harvard University. These ment of genera,we have followed substantiallythe libraries are especiallystrong in the literature from same genera recognizedby Sharp, but, when in my !750 to !850 comparedwith other major zoological opinion some of Sharp's splits have been unwar- libraries in the United States. The literature of this ranted, I have not hesitated to lump, but the card period is critical for a projectof the type undertaken covering each genus shows clearly what has been by Peters. done, and why. Eachvalid genusproposed since the Other ornithologicalcenters.--Workers at most other publication of Sharp's Handlist is recognized and majorornithological centers with the facilitiesto sup- spacedon an index card the sameas any other genus. port a world checklist project were involved with I havealso included the genericsynonymy since 1900. majorregional studies. These included collecting, bi- At the end of eachgenus I have a card listing forms ologicalsurveys, and regional checklists,such as the not representedin the M.C.Z. collection and this card Cory-Hellmayrand the Ridgwayprojects. Most work- is frequently enlarged to include synonymsas well. ers in these other centers could not have undertaken "I enclosea samplecard showing just exactlywhat a world checklist,even if they wished. Thus, a void our arrangement is. I use as many cards as are nec- existed, and when Peters decided that the time had essaryfor a speciesleaving plenty of spacefor ex- cometo replaceSharpe's "Catalogue," he had no com- pansion. The general arrangement is from West to petition. East and from North to South." There did not appear to be any discussionamong It is not clear who conceivedof the card catalogue. Petersand other ornithologistson the idea of replac- It may have been O. Bangs.It was far more likely the ing Sharpe's"Catalogue" with a new checklist,at least brainchild of Thomas Barbour, then Curator of Rep- not in written form. There is no mention of work on tiles and Amphibians at the MCZ, but more interested the new checklistin Annual Reportsof the MCZ be- in ornithology. Later, when Barbourbecame director fore 1930,although thesereports continued to record of the museum (! November 1927), he instituted ma- the progressmade on the card catalogue.Peters did jor changesin the physicalplant and organizationof not appear to have mentioned his idea to other or- the museum (seeBarbour's Memorial by Peters, 1948, nithologistsin his correspondence.Recall Peters' let- Auk 65: 432). Barbour was a fervent collector, and ter of 28 January1929 to Wetmore in which he reveals among other things he desired to have a specimenof almost hesitantly that he has started work on his every known genusof birds at the MCZ collection,a handlist. By the late !920s, Bangswas seriously ill, taskmade difficult in a time of intensive genericsplit- although he did not retire before his death in !932. ting in avian systematics.During his tenure at the He did not seemto have been stronglyinvolved with MCZ, Barbour obtained many important avian col- the workings of the departmentfor severalyears. No lectionsfor the museum.But to reachhis desiredgoal, record exists in the MCZ Archives to indicate that one must know the genera of birds, what is in the Peters discussed his idea with Barbour or other or- collection, and what is not. All of this information nithologistsin the Cambridgearea. Thus, credit for could be summarizedin a card catalogue.Although the checklistconcept must be given solely to Peters. no documentssupport this conclusion(suggested by He knew, as did other ornithologistsat the time, that Ernst Mayr), it is most reasonablethat the genesisof Sharpe'swork had become largely obsolete. Peters the card cataloguewas the collecting compulsionof also realized that in his hated card catalogue,he had Barbour.There is no evidencethat Bangswas deeply exactly the resourceneeded to undertake this task. July1990] Reviews 635

Paynter suggestsPeters started work on his new Clearly, Sharpe'ssystem (including that proposed "Handlist" in 1927 when Thomas Barbour became in 1891) was obsolete,and this aspectof systematics directorof the MCZ, and applied his great energies lay outsideof Peters'ability and interest.No author- and enthusiasmto rejuvenatethe then stagnantmu- itativeclassification had beenpublished for the orders seum. This is reasonable, but does not fit with Peters' and families of all birds since 1900.The extant systems correspondence.In the absenceof written documen- were proposedby Ftirbringer in his two-volume "Un- tation, it is not possibleto say when Peters decided tersuchungenzur Morphologie und Systematik der to undertake preparation of his new handlist, but V•gel" (1888), Gadow in his "V•gel. Part II. Syste- evidenceexists as to when he actuallystarted work. matischerTheil" (1893),and Sharpe(1891). These sys- This is Peters'letter of 28 January 1929 to Wetmore temsdiffered greatly from previouslyaccepted ones, cited in the opening paragraph. If the "handlist" as, for example, the one adopted in Sharpe's"Cata- manuscriptwas 3% completedat this time, I estimate logue." But the Ftirbringer and Gadow systemsusu- Petersbegan work on it in early 1929,or perhapslate ally did not include detailsof subfamilies,and neither in December 1928. In addition, there is the first men- provided a classificationfor passerine families, al- tion of this work in the 1929-1930Annual Reportof though Sharpe included both aspects.The American the MCZ (p. 11), which reads,"Mr. Peters has been Ornithologists'Union Check-listCommittee was con- working activelyin the preparationof a new checklist cerned with the same problem in the preparation of of the birds of the world. It is expectedthat the manu- the 4th edition of its Check-list becausethe previous scriptof the first volume will be ready for the press Check-listshad used old and outdated systems.For by the first of January[1931]. This proposedlist had the first edition, L. Stejnegerwas asked to provide a its inception in the card catalogue,where a list of the classificationand sequencefor North American birds speciesis maintained that have been described since based as far as possible on the existing Coues and the publication of Sharpe'sHandlist. Now that this Ridgwayarrangements. Stejneger reversed the scheme cataloguehas reachedinto the Passeres,it seemswell in mostearlier Check-listsof startingwith the highest to proceedwith its amplification in to a new 'list.'" groups.He proposedan arrangementthat beganwith The 1930-1931report statesthat "The first volume of the grebesand endedwith the thrushes.No changes Mr Peters's 'Checklist of Birds of the World' was sent in the basic classification were made in the 2nd and to Pressabout I February [1931] and should appear 3rd editionsof the AOU Check-list,although Ridg- before1 October[1931]." From this evidence,I sug- way and Stejnegerhad been asked to prepare a new gestthat 1 January1929 can be taken as the approx- one for the 3rd edition. Hence, it was imperative to imate date for the beginning of work on "Peters' have an up-to-dateclassification and sequencefor the Check-list." 4th edition of the AOU Check-list, and the AOU A major choicePeters faced in the preparationof Check-list Committee appointed a subcommittee of his new handlistwas the classificationand sequence A. Wetmore and W. deW. Miller (of the AMNH) to of avian orders and families. A distinction must be prepare them. Wetmore and deW. Miller (1926, Auk madebetween a classificationand a sequence,which 43: 337) published a classificationthat was adopted are sharplydifferent, although frequently confused, essentiallyunchanged for the 4th (1931), 5th (1957), conceptsin systematics(Mayr 1989,Auk 106:508). The and 6th (1983) editions of the AOU Check-list. This confusion stems from the fact that classifications are classificationwas not adequate for Peters' purposes most commonly presented in the form of a linear becauseit included only North Americanfamilies and sequence.A classificationis the arrangementof rec- subfamilies.Shortly after informing Wetmore that he ognized taxa in an inclusive,nonoverlapping Lin- was engagedin preparation of of a new "Handlist," naean hierarchy;the arrangementcan be depicted Petersasked Wetmore if he would send him a copy bestas a three-dimensionalphylogenetic diagram. A of the new classification of birds of the world that he sequenceis the representationof the taxa in a clas- was preparing. On 5 June 1929 (Wetmore papers,Box sificationin a linearseries that is requiredbecause of 49) Wetmorewrites, "In accordancewith my promise the one-dimensional structure of checklists, books, to you when I was with you recently I am sending cabinets in collections, etc. Rules exist for the con- you herewith a copy of the classificationof the birds structionof sequences,but many different, equally of the world that I have prepared for the article in valid sequencescan be constructedfrom the same the EncyclopaediaBrittanica." On 9 January 1930 classification.The existence of a standardsequence of Wetmore sent Petersa copy of his "A systematicclas- taxa is important for the numerous information-re- sification for the birds of the world" (1930, Proc. U.S. trieval functions of classification. A standard se- Natl. Mus. 76 [Art.24]:1), which Petersacknowledged quenceis a heuristicdevice, and by its very natureit in a letter dated 20 January 1930. Wetmore's classi- is partly arbitrary,but it mustbe broadlyaccepted. fication was an expansionof that developed in 1926 Petersrequired an up-to-date classificationbut, even with deW. Miller. It followed Gadow (1893) rather more importantly, a modern and broadly accepted closelyfor the nonpasserinebirds, and Stejneger (1885. sequenceof avian orders and families for his check- StandardNatural History. Vol. IV, Birds.J. S. Kings- list. ley, Ed. Boston)for the passerinebirds. Stejneger ac- 636 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

cepted the earlier suggestionof Sundevall (1872 = was not quite followed as such remains no longer 1889) to place the Conirostres(finches) at the end of exist (and may never have) for all members of the the oscine sequence.Thus, Stejneger (1889, p. 483) Raphidae (dodos),which are included. At least one arguedthat the finchesare the mostspecialized song- speciesof moas is known from mummified remains birds, and placed the New World nine-primaried os- that include skin and feathers, but all moas were ex- cines and the Old World ploceidsand estrildids last cluded. Peters' distinction between fossil and living in the oscine sequence. Wetmore accepted this ar- birds is a good one and is still acceptedby ornithol- rangement,and thereby advocateda systemfor the ogists.The basictaxonomic unit is the subspeciesor oscinesbased on the essentiallypre-evolutionary ap- the monotypicspecies, for which Petersprovided the proach of Sundevall. Several major differencesexist citation to the original description,distribution, and betweenthe Stejnegerand Wetmoresequences of the synonymiesof thosenames not includedin the ex- oscines.Wetmore placed the swallowsafter the larks, cellent synonymies in Sharpe's "Catalogue" and and listed the corvid and parid groupsearly in the "Handlist" and in Hartert's "V6gel der pal•iarktischen sequencebefore the Old World insect-eaters.He re- Fauna." He excluded extensive citations to the liter- tained the shrikelike families, including the Austral- ature and descriptionsof the plumages,as provided asianforms, late in the sequencewith the Old World by Sharpe;these aspects were no longer needed. nectar-feedersjust before the Old World finchesand Some comparisonscan be made between Sharpe New World nine-primaried oscines,which ended the and Peters and their respectiveprojects. Sharpe was list. Peters clearly indicated that he would follow 24 when he was appointed head of the Bird Collec- Wetmore'sarrangement, but was concernedwith the tion, BMNH, and presumably decided to begin his fact that, althoughWetmore used an elaboratesupra- "Catalogue."Peters was 34 when he becamea full- familial classification, he did not include subfamilies time resident volunteer in the MCZ and started the in his 1930 scheme,a practicemaintained in all future card catalogue.At 39 he began work on his "Check- editionsof his classification.Peters had to recognize list." Sharpe was 26 and Peters 42 when their first a number of subfamiliesto provide an adequateclas- volumes were published,and 32 and 51 years old, sification of birds for his checklist. respectively,when the fourth waspublished. A most In all his letters to Wetmore, Peters referred to his important differencein the historiesof theseprojects projectas his "Handlist,"using the old and honorable existed almost from their beginnings.Sharpe's su- term from Grayand Sharpe. Without any explanation, perior, Albert Gtinther(Keeper of Zoology),realized Peters switched to the term "check-list" in a letter to the enormity of the "Catalogue"project perhaps be- Wetmore dated 28 January1931, and from then on causehe was involved in a similar projectfor fishes. he used "check-list."No reasonswere given for this Consequently,he provided Sharpe with a seriesof change,nor could I find anything in the MCZ ar- assistants.As a result,the "Catalogue"volumes varied chiveson the changefrom handlist to "check-list." considerablyin quality. Those by Gadow were re- The first volume of Peters' "Check-list of Birds of gardedto be the poorestand thoseby Salvadorithe the World" was published in 1931 and was reviewed best. Overall, the quality of the different volumes of by Witmet Stone(1932, Auk 49: 112).Stone was con- the British Museum Catalogue is high. Work pro- cerned that the first volumes would be out of date gressedapace, and the "Catalogue"was completed in before the last ones were completed, and estimated 27 volumesin 1898when Sharpewas 51. Sharpethen that the new Check-list would be completed in 10 finishedhis five-volume"Handlist" just three months volumes.Although Stoneurged that other ornithol- before he died at 62 in 1909. The index appeared in ogistsbe askedto prepare some of the families, he 1912 after his death. suggestedthat this approachwas impractical.Stone Petersdid not havean equallysensible director and was correct that the first volumes would be outdated received no assistance other than a technical clerk to before the completion of the Check-list, but not on assistwith the cardcatalogue. Perhaps he did not wish the impracticalityof multiauthorship.It is not clear any assistance,as he never discussedthe Check-list why Stone felt that a multiauthoredapproach was or requestedhelp from Greenway,who startedwork not practical;this wasused successfully in the British at the MCZ in 1930 and served as Assistant Curator Museum Catalogue. Multiauthorship should have in the bird collection of the MCZ from 1932. Thus, beeninstituted by Petersand the MCZ from the onset Peterscompleted Vol. VII only in 1951 when he was of the Check-list. 62 yearsold. BothSharpe and Peters died at the same Petersprovided a checklistof all taxaof living birds. relativelyyoung ageof 62, which shouldnot be taken He listed avian fossil families, but not genera and as an indication of the consequenceof working on species.His criterion for living vs. fossil birds is global avian checklists.James Greenway and Ernst charming (Vol. I: vi-vii): "It has been necessaryto Mayr areexceptions that disprove the rule.Only about draw the line somewhere between fossil and recent 1950 did Peters realize that he would never be able birds, and for this purposeany bird is consideredas to completethis projectunassisted, and he askedJohn belongingamong the fossilsif it is not known from Zimmer (AMNH) to revise the Tyrannidae and re- at least a fragment of skin and feathers."This rule latedfamilies for the Check-list.But Peters apparently July1990] Reviews 637 did not formulatea comprehensiveplan for the con- Estimateswere neededon the numberof speciesand tinuation of his project and did not ask anyone to subspeciesin eachfamily-level taxonso that families succeedhim, in spite of the fact that it was obvious couldbe assignedto volumesof approximatelyequal he would not be able to complete this work. More- size. This worked rather well, except for an arith- over, Peters suspectedhe might die at a somewhat meticalerror by Mayr that resultedin the larger-than- young age from a heart attack, as had his father. He usualVol. XI. A successfulgrant applicationwas sub- told Greenway on a number of occasionsthat there mitted to the National ScienceFoundation by Mayr was no senseto call an ambulanceif he collapsedin and Greenwayfor the years 1956-1957to support the museum. His premonition came to pass when publication.Proceeds from salesof eachvolume were Peterscollapsed in the museum in April 1952 and to go into a special fund to support publication of died a few dayslater. At this time, Peterswas working future volumes. An attempt was made to increase on the first volume of the oscinesand had completed sales and broaden the distribution of the Check-list the chapterson the Alaudidae and the Hirundinidae by reducingthe price per volume. This was not suc- for Vol. IX (1960). cessful.Another attempt to increasesales was made At Peters'death, JamesGreenway became curator by including English names for each speciesin Vol. and served from 1953 until 1961, when he resigned IX, the first one published (1960) after Peters'death. and moved to the AMNH. He served the AMNH as This idea was dropped becausereviewers discussed a ResearchAssociate in the Departmentof Ornithol- only the Englishnames rather than the scientificcon- ogy until his death in 1989.Raymond Paynter, who tent of the Check-list. was appointed AssistantCurator in 1953, becameCu- An immediateproblem was the classificationand rator after Greenway'sresignation. Ernst Mayr as- sequenceof families and subfamiliesof the oscines. sumedhis dutiesas AlexanderAgassiz Professor of Mayr and Amadon had recently published their "A Zoology at the MCZ in 1953. The later history of classificationof Recentbirds" (1951, Am. Mus. Novit. "Peters'Check-list" is associatedclosely with Green- No. 1463), in which they proposeda different ar- way and Mayr, and subsequentlywith Paynter.Much rangementfrom that of Wetmore for this suborder. of the following analysisis basedon my interviews This classificationdivided the oscinesmore finely into with all three,but mainly with Greenwayand Mayr, subfamiliesand tribesand arrangedthem in a differ- who formulatedthe overall plan to completethe ent sequence.Considerable divergence of opinionhad Check-list. developedbetween the systematistswho followed The Check-listproject was officiallyturned over to Wetmore'sclassification (the so-called"American sys- Greenwayafter Peters'death. Greenwaydid not want tem") and thosewho usedother systems, for example, the Check-list project, and basicallydid not know thosestemming more directly from Hartert. Most post- what to do because he was never taken into Peters' 1900 avian classifications originated from those confidence.Wisely, Greenway waited until Septem- proposedby Filrbringer and by Gadow, with broad ber 1953when Mayr arrived at the MCZ. Mayr's ap- agreementon the classificationand sequencefor the pointment was negotiatedindependently of Peters' nonpasserinebirds. Neither Filrbringer nor Gadow death. By chancespace was availableon the fifth floor provideddetails on the classificationof the passefine of the MCZ, and Mayr's officewas immediatelyad- birds, and this part of the systembecame contentious. jacent to the ornithology collection.Greenway spoke Wetmore had presentedhis classificationin 1926 and to Mayr soonafter he arrived, and the two agreedto againin 1930with no explanation,as was the custom codirectthe project,much to Greenway'srelief. The of most other workers. His later revisions (1934, 1940, basicdecisions and responsibilityfor developingthe 1951, 1960) differed little from the 1930 scheme, and overall plan for completion of "Peters' Check-list" explanationswere provided only in the last two. Al- were Mayr's. Essentiallythe oscinesremained to be thoughstill brief and clearly inadequate,Mayr and covered in the Check-list, but these birds comprise Amadon provided some 30 pagesof explanationto just under half of all avian speciesand a high per- support their arrangementof the oscines,far more centageof the subspecies.An overall plan wasneeded than had other authors.Not only wasthere a problem to completethe oscinevolumes as rapidly aspossible. in the sequenceof the oscines,but the classification The first, mostimportant, and wisestdecision made of manyAustralian (especially), African, and Oriental by Mayr and Greenwaywas to not attemptto prepare groupshad to be resolved.These families of oscine theoscine volumes themselves. They decided the vol- birds were largely neglectedin Wetmore'sclassifi- umes would be multiauthored. The editors would so- cations.Mayr and Amadon paid specialattention to licit avian systematistsworldwide to prepare manu- non-Holarctic Old World groups and proposed a scriptsfor the individual families.Some of the larger, number of new family-level taxa. The conflictbe- complexfamilies were treatedby severalauthors. The tween the Wetmorearrangement used previously in volumes would not appear in taxonomicorder, but "Peters'Check-list" and the Mayr-Amadonsystem for as they were completed.A classificationand standard the oscineshad to be resolvedfully beforework could sequencefor the oscineshad to be prepared, which be continued. led to a major controversyin the Check-listproject. Independently of the decisionfacing the editorsof 638 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

"Peters'Check-list," ProfessorStresemann proposed New World nine-primaried oscinesshould be placed that a discussion be held at the XI International Or- last in the sequenceof oscines.And mostadversaries nithologicalCongress (Basel, May 1954) to consider failed to recognizethat the central issuewas agree- the classificationand, more importantly, the sequence ment on a standardsequence of passerinefamilies for of passerinebirds. He advocatedthat attemptsbe made purposesof information retrieval. Classificatoryques- to reachan agreementon a standardsequence of pas- tions of the family-level taxa recognized and the serinefamilies for use in checklists,regional faunas, grouping of thesetaxa within the oscineswere also and similar works. This meeting was arrangedunder significant. The basic problem in these discussions, the chairmanshipof G. C. A. Junge(Leiden). The very both pro and con, was that there was little solid evi- brief report in the X! CongressProceedings (Basel, denceon which to classifythe oscinebirds. The con- 1955:34) is inadequateto determinewhat occurred troversywill continuewithout resolutionuntil much at this meeting,or the purposeof the committeeap- more evidenceis amassedand until antagonistsdis- pointed as a result of the meeting. The proceedings tinguish between classificationsand sequences,es- stateclearly that the committeewas to recommenda peciallystandard sequences. What was neededin 1954 sequenceof avianfamilies for Europeanpublications, wasa standardsequence for oscinefamilies that would but others more reasonablyinterpreted the goal of facilitate communication. This was what the "Basel the committeeto be a standardglobal sequence. Junge sequence"was intended to provide. was a weak chairman,and the meeting rapidly be- "Peters' Check-list" is, and will remain for many came chaotic (letter, K. H. Voous to W. J. Bock, Feb- years,the only detailed checklistof the world's avi- ruary 1987).Erwin Stresemanntook over the discus- fauna. It provides a classificationand a standardse- sionand proposed that Hartert'ssequence be followed quenceof birds for regional avifaunas,museum col- for the world avifauna--an untenable idea. Finally, lections, and the host of other informational retrieval an international committeewith Junge as chairman systemsused by avian biologists.The most sensible was appointed by Sir LandsboroughThomson, pres- decision to facilitate communication is for all orni- ident of the Congress,to decidethese issues. Many thologiststo adoptthe entire sequencein the 15 vol- American workers were furiousbecause they felt the umes of Peterswhether one agreeswith it or not. If committee was intentionally loaded against Wet- a justification is requestedof the sequenceused in more's classification. But the task of the committee the oscine volumes of "Peters' Check-list," the answer was not to decideon classification,but to expresstheir is simple. No elaboratejustification or scientificevi- preferenceon a standardsequence for oscinefamilies. dence is required to support it. Mayr and Greenway Almost all oscine classifications divided these birds agreedto undertake the huge task of completing the into three major complexes,namely: (1) Old World Check-list; therefore, it was their responsibility to insect-eaters and relatives, (2) New World nine-pri- decidewhich sequenceto use for the oscines,just as maried oscinesand other finches,and (3) crows,birds it was Peters' responsibility to adopt the then-new of paradise,and their allies. The major decision facing Wetmore(1930) classificationand sequenceof avian the committeewas the sequentialorder of thesethree families for his Check-list. These editors, fortunately, complexes. did adopt broadly acceptedstandard sequences for Becausethe classificationand sequenceto be used the volumes under their charge. in "Peters'Check-list" would have important impli- After establishingthe framework for the oscinevol- cations,Mayr and Greenwaypledged to adoptfor the umes,including which familieswere coveredin each forthcomingvolumes of Petersthe sequencepro- volume, the editors invited specialiststo analyze the posedby this committee.They pushedfor prompt classificationand preparemanuscripts for individual completionof the committee'swork becausethey families and subfamilies.Almost all invited system- could not plan the future volumeswithout agreement atistsagreed to contributeto the Check-list,which is on a standardsequence. The committee'sdelibera- a testimonyto the importanceof "Peters'Check-list," tions were conductedby mail, and its report pub- to the efforts of the organizing editors, and to the lished by Mayr and Greenway (1956, Breviora No. altruistic spirit of cooperatingspecialists. Consider- 58). It mustbe stressedthat the title of this report and able time was requiredto reactivatethe Check-list its entire analysisdealt with sequencesof passerine project.The first post-Petersvolume to be published birds, not with their classification. was Vol. IX, which appeared in 1960. It contained a Almostall publishedopposition to this "Baselse- brief statementon proceduresadopted by the editors. quence"came from Americanornithologists (Wet- The final volume on the suboscinesproved to be a more 1957, Condor 59: 207-209; Storer 1971, Avian problem. At his death in 1957, Zimmer had almost Biol. 1: 1-18). Amadon'sdiscussion of passerineclas- completed the manuscriptsfor the Tyrannidae and sification(1957, Proc.Zool. Soc.,Calcutta, Mookerjee ßother New World familiesassigned to him. Although Mem. Vol: 259-268) was submitted before the pub- these were done carefully, Zimmer had limited him- licationof Mayrand Greenway (1956). Unfortunately, self to questionson the speciesand subspecieslevels. mostof the argumentcentered around the trivial is- He followed closelythe familial and generic classi- sue of whether the crows and their relatives or the fications of the Hellmayr volume. This manuscript July1990] Reviews 639

stagnatedfor more than 10 years.Melvin Traylor ac- numberof families,to Paynterand Traylor for editing ceptedthe task of editing the entire volume as well severalvolumes and writing the manuscriptsfor a asundertaking a review of the subfamiliesand genera numberof difficult families,to Paynterfor the index of the Tyrannidae. His effortsresulted in a major im- volume,to Cottrellfor his painstakingeditorial work provementover the original manuscriptsprepared and checkingof original citationsin the last several by Zimmer. Volume VIII was publishedin 1978, al- volumes, and to all ornithologistswho contributed most30 yearsafter Petersasked Zimmer to undertake chapters.As avianbiologists, no matterwhat our re- thesemost difficult groups. search, we are indebted to these workers. All volumes Most volumes were printed in small editions, and are still in print, thanksto the far-sightednessof the suppliesran out well before satisfyingthe demand. editors, and I urge all seriousornithologists to be About 1960, the editors decided to reprint the vol- certain that this invaluable set is in their personal umesfor which the supplywas exhausted.Not sur- library or at leastin thoseof their institutions.It is prisingly,the informationin Vol. I wasbadly out of oneof the prizedand most-used items in my personal date, and the editors decided to prepare a complete library,close at hand to my computerdesk and fre- revision rather than reprint it. Several workers were quentlywith one or more volumesopened on the asked to revise the individual families. Professor Stre- desk. semann completedhis work on the Falconiformes I thank the officials of the Smithsonian Archives promptly,and his manuscriptsat for manyyears be- and of the Museumof ComparativeZoology Archives fore other authors finished their work. Stresemann who permittedme to examinematerial under their was unable to revise it before his death in 1972, and care, and for assistancein my research.Ernst Mayr, DeanAmadon completed the necessaryrevisions. The JamesGreenway, and RaymondPaynter must be revisedVol. I was published in 1979.Its prefacepro- thankedfor the many hoursgiven to me in interviews videsfigures for the numbersof taxacovered, which on their contributionto the Peters'Check-list project gives an idea of the advancein ornithologicalsys- and many related topics.Ernst Mayr and Raymond tematics between 1931 and 1979. Paynterread severaldrafts of the manuscript,made Ornithologists are fortunate to have in "Peters' manycorrections and provided valuable suggestions. Check-list"a resourcenot availablefor any othergroup Lastly,I thankAlan H. Brushfor his excellentediting of animals. This is a worldwide checklist for all de- of the manuscript. scribedtaxa down to the subspecieswith the needed information on the citation of the original descrip- tion, synonymies,and distribution.Unfortunately, as for all publishedworks, the earlyvolumes of "Peters" Raptors in the Modern World.--B.-U. Meyburg dating from the 1930sand 1940sare seriouslyobso- and R. D. Chancellor (Eds.). 1989. Proc. III World lete. It is fortunate that Vol. I was revised, but there Conferenceof the World Working Group on Birdsof are no plansto my knowledgeto reviseany of the Prey (InternationalCouncil for Bird Preservation). other volumes. It is doubtful whether "Peters' Check- 611 pp., 273 tables,maps, 63 drawingsof raptorsby list" will ever be revised. The difficulty of dealing F. Weick. (Available from R. D. Chancellor, 15b Bolton with all subspeciesof birds has become an almost Gardens,London SW5 AOL,U.K.) $45.00(prepaid).-- insurmountabletask. One has only to note that the This conference was held at Eilat, Israel, where vast 6th edition of the AOU Check-list(1983) expanded numbersof migratingraptors funnel in and out of its area of coveragebut excludedsubspecies. Even so, wintering quartersin Africa from easternEurope and it was delayed for many years.Subspecies are to be Asia. The publishedresults are too diverse and ex- included in the 7th edition of the AOU Check-list, tensiveto be reviewed in any detail, aswill be evident with publicationplanned for 1992;one hopesit will from the followingsummary. There are 72 papersby appearas scheduled. 112 authorsfrom 27 countries,comprising by subject: There are numerousrecent checklists of the species Raptorson migrationand wintering grounds(19 pa- of birds of the world ("A Coded Workbook of Birds pers),Population biology and breeding(10), Biology of the World," Edwards 1982-1986, 2nd ed., two vols.; and conservationof rare species(24), Raptorsin pol- "ReferenceList of the Birds of the World," Morony, luted environments (11), Habitat analysisand census Bock,and Farrand 1975). Unfortunately, a good, up- techniques(4), and Promotionof legislation(4). dated treatmentof the geographictaxa of birds of the Many of the contributionsadd to the basicbiology world, including superspecies,allospecies, and well- of raptors.For example,for resident Golden Eagles marked subspeciesin addition to taxonomicspecies, (Aquilachrysaetos) in Scotland,the amountof carrion is lacking. (sheepand deer) available in winter controls(nesting) With the completionof the "Peters'Check-list," all density, while the amount of live prey (hares and ornithologistsare indebted to Peters for deciding to grouse)in the summer controlsproductivity (J. Wat- transform his despisedcard catalogueinto his most sonand D. R. Langslow).Eurasian Sparrowhawks (Ac- valuable"Check-list," to Greenwayand Mayr for con- cipiternisus) in England have permanent territories, tinuing the projectboth as editorsand authorsof a which expandin sizein yearsof prey shortage.The 640 Reviews [Auk,Vol. 107

number of nonbreeding individuals leading a some- count of the spectacular shorebird concentrations what marginalexistence may approach,in femalesat along the eastcoast of the United States.More dis- least, one-half that of the breeders, and some females turbing is that the book seemsto build to a synthetic do not breed until 5 years of age. Herr Weick's ex- conclusion,but really does not. cellent unlabeled drawings are listed in the intro- At least for the first 12 chaptersI recommend re- duction and thus provide an identification quiz. laxing and going with the flow. The book is written Both the amateur and professional interested in as a seriesof essayswith a pleasantblend of personal hawks and owls will find much of interest here.--D. insightand analysis of research.Anyone enjoying the AMADON. articlesin NaturalHistory or Smithsonianmagazine will find Terborgh'sbook stimulatingas well. I would not let the personal,semipopular style discouragepeople from using the book as supplementalreading in an Where Have All the Birds Gone?--J. Terborgh. undergraduateconservation biology courseor as the 1989. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University core reading in a graduate seminar. In fact, in the Press.xvi + 207 pp., 31 figures,14 tables.ISBN 0-691- latter role it would be excellent for the breadth of 02428-6.Paper, $14.95; cloth, $45.00--No one familiar topicsand ideascovered. I would supplementits use, with either birds or hot conservation issues needs to however, with a large dose of reading from articles be introduced to the notion that migratory bird pop- from the ecologicaland environmental conservation ulationsface seriousproblems. What is surprisingis literature. that for all of the attention migratorybirds have re- The intended audiencefor this book goesbeyond ceived, until now no single sourcebookexists that the academic.There is alsoan effort to reachthe great gives a scientificallyaccurate overview of the prob- massof bird enthusiasts.Toward that goal I find that lems. "Where Have All the Birds Gone?" appears at the writing is friendly but much of the graphic il- a perfecttime and will likely becomeone of the most lustrationunimaginative and ineffective.Several of important books on bird conservation.It should be the maps and line drawings are difficult to read or read by everyone interestedin birds. have shading and numbersnot defined in the leg- At the risk of sounding trite, the problems facing ends. The centerpiececonsists of 19 black-and-white migratorybirds are globaland complex.Often what pictures of tropical habitats occasionally populated has passedfor analysisof the issueshas been narrow by PrincetonUniversity students.Unfortunately, the in scopeand technocraticin style.John Terborgh has printing of these pictures is low contrast,and the an excellentbackground for highlighting the Wag- entire exerciseof habitat photos seemsanachronistic. nerian themesof migratory bird ecology.His research The book looks a bit too much like an academic book. and writings have characteristicallypursued the big The book has two interrelated purposes.The pri- picture. His papers on structure in Amazonian bird mary purposeis to raisethe public awarenessof both communitiesprovide a framework that avian ecolo- domestic and international environmental crises that gistswill test and modify with detailed data for de- affectmigratory birds (amongother things).The sec- cades.Similarly, "Where Have All the BirdsGone?" ond is to inform and excite the reader, particularly lays out the problems, both realized and potential, about new discoveriesconcerning the basic natural that facemigratory birds. Hopefully, it alsowill be a history of migratory birds. watershedfor encouragingresearch and activism. Most of the natural history in the book is oriented The thesisof the book is simple. We are witnessing toward the winter behavior and distribution of mi- large,perhaps unprecedented changes in habitatboth gratory birds. I believe this is a well-chosenfocus. in North Americaand the Neotropics.Migratory birds This is not to saythat we know everythingabout their have shown, or very shortly will show, seriouspop- behaviorin North America.This hasbeen an exciting ulation declines. As the migration systemis slowly two decades,however, and interesting phenomena degraded,the leastcommon and perhapsmost inter- associatedwith overwintering migrants continue to estingbird species(e.g. Cerulean Warbler) will give be discovered.Many fascinatinginsights were sum- way to a world of the ordinary (e.g. EuropeanStar- marized previously in the symposium"Migratory ling). Finally, the problemsfacing migratorybirds Birds in the Neotropics" (A. Keast and E. S. Morton, require a more concertedand lesspiecemeal effort. Eds.,1980) and subsequentreview articles.Terborgh, In his attempt to present a political messageand a however, presentsa very readableoverview and does synthesisof scholarlyideas in a popular style, Ter- an excellentjob of conveyingthe diversity of behav- borghhas created an unusualbook. Readers from the ior of migratory birds, as well as the diversity of hab- academiccommunity may be a little frustratedat the itats that are designatedby the rubric "the tropics." meanderingstructure of the argument.For example, His prose is less adept at providing a feel for how we are told in the preface that the book will address little we still know. Many of the details of behavior problemsrelated to Neotropical land-bird migrants. and biogeographyare basedon the most anecdotal Along the way, however,we are treatedto a chapter or sketchyevidence. I hope the next decadewill bring on the waterfowl of the ChesapeakeBay and an ac- the numerouswell-designed field studiesof demog- July1990] Reviews 641

raphy, foragingecology, and socialbehavior of win- birds(including the North AmericanWaterfowl Sur- ter migrants necessaryto fill in the huge gaps in vey), a muchmore comprehensive land-bird program knowledge. could be implemented.Terborgh's suggestions for a The discussionof the myriad problemsfacing mi- seriesof large long-termplots to complementthe gratorybirds is well balancedbetween breeding-sea- BreedingBird Survey is excellent.It will requirelead- sonand wintering-groundshabitat alteration. On the ershipand resourcesto make certainthat the meth- North American front, the mostimportant lessonthat odologiesare sound and standardized. His moremod- has emerged from recent work on forest fragmenta- est suggestion that the Breeding Bird Survey tion is that assessinghabitat quantity may become incorporatevegetation data has been made repeatedly lessimportant than habitat quality. Threatsto forest by others.Even the simplestof habitatcategorizations migrants have been ignored primarily becausethe would makethe surveymuch morevaluable. Both of grossamount of foresthabitat in easternNorth Amer- these recommendations are well within the abilities ica is large and (until recently)was rebounding from and resourcesof the USFWSand other private groups postsettlementclearing. Terborgh arguespersuasive- interestedin bird populations.As Terborghpoints ly that total acreagefigures are misleading;much of out, it is too bad (but understandable)that an adequate the forest coveris in small woodlotsand plantation monitoring programdoes not exist for forest bird monocultures.The book lays out most of the discov- populations.If we miss this opportunity to set up eries and issuesthat surround the pattern and mech- adequatemonitoring programs for the future, there anism of declinesdue to fragmentation.Our knowl- will be no acceptableexcuses. edgeof mechanismis still in its infancy,and perhaps After the first 12 chapters,it is no secretthat Ter- new materialon this subjectwill developfor the next borgh is using migratorybirds to interestbird en- edition. thusiastsin globalenvironmental problems. And much Terborgh'sdiscussion of tropicaldeforestation shies of the readershipshould be ready for action,as the away from some of the oversimplificationsand false author movesin for the kill. Unfortunately, many of dichotomiesthat plague the topic. He correctly at- the threadsthat arepartly woven in the first 12 chap- temptsto identify particularhabitats (and the species tersare dropped rather than tied togetherin the end- they support) that are threatened, and particular ing. speciesmost dependent on thosehabitats. There is a It is understandablydifficult to identify root causes tendency, however, for Terborgh to overemphasize and offer prescriptionsfor the many environmental the distinctionbetween "primary" and "secondary" problemsthat impinge on migratorybirds both in habitats. These terms are often difficult to define in North and tropicalAmerica. Therefore, Terborgh has a region that has been heavily settled over the past chosento focuson a few issues.Most of his summary few millennia. The tendency to focus on this dis- discussionfocuses on the tropicalend, with relatively tinction distractsfrom the primary problem: the con- little specificanalysis of what canbe doneto mitigate versionof all agesof forestto pastureand farmland. the effectsof suburbanizationand cowbird parasit- In general Terborghcaptures the essenceof the prob- ism. Even within this more narrow framework, the lems. However, many of the specificsof his analysis threadsconnecting the first part of the book and the will undoubtedlychange with resultsfrom quanti- final two chaptersare thin. For example, we learn tative studies of land use and bird distributions (for earlier in the book that the Amazon Basin supports example, Chestnut-sidedWarblers are not restricted relativelyfew speciesof migrantsand is coveredwith to "undisturbed"forest, and only male Hooded War- forest that, becauseof its sheer size, poor economic blers are found primarily in mature evergreenfor- prospects,and inaccessibility,has a relatively long ests). life expectancy.It thereforeseems odd that the sum- If all Terborgh did was wax philosophicalon the mary discussionfocuses on the developmentof Am- passageof yet anothernatural wonder, the entire book azonianforests rather than the dwindling forestsof would be another exercise in romantic lamentation. Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. In this ageof globalwarming and Asiancockroaches, There seem to be opportunitiesoutside of strict it is not sufficientto raiseawareness of problemswith- forestprotection for preservinghabitat for migrants. out presentingsome tangible solutions or directions. For example,we learn in Chap. 11 that muchof the Terborgh offersa number of ideas for future actions. agriculturaldevelopment of the Caribbean Basin, Thesefall into the areasof improved monitoring and where a large shareof the Neotropicalmigrants re- conservation action. side, may have lessimpact on many migrants than Terborghbegins the bookwith a thoughtfulreview certain large-scalecommercial uses (sugar planta- of the stateof long-term censusingof land-bird pop- tions, etc.) becauseit createsa patchy quilt of field ulations. This is a timely discussion.The Mitchell and forestpatches. Further, Terborghsupports the amendmentmade it a legal mandateof the U.S. Fish long-heldbelief that certaincommercial agricultural and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to monitor the popu- habitats,such as shade-coffeeplantations, are much lationsof "non-game"birds. With the amount of ef- betterthan others.When it comesto the final chapter, fort that goesinto censusingabout 58 speciesof game however, there is little discussionof creative ways to 642 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

improve habitat for migratory birds outsideof forest Many of the piecesare in place.What is lacking are reserves. resourcesand coordination.Perhaps we should look Much of the discussionon tropical forest conser- to the Western Hemisphere Shorebird ReserveNet- vation is curiously dated. There is no feel in the dis- work as inspiration for the development of interna- cussionfor the tremendousamount of energy and tional interest and cooperation for the conservation some of the new developmentsin this field. For ex- of land birds and habitat. ample, the pastpolicies of the World Bankand USAID Terborghhas raised the issueinvolved in migratory are repeatedlycastigated, usually in the samebreath. bird conservationmasterfully. He alsohas excited the USAID, however, is light years ahead of the World imagination about the migratory bird phenomenon. Bank in its environmental policies. The Pichis-Pal- He has left it up to the readershipto hunt down the cazu projectwas originally funded through a World detailsand fleshout a specificplan of action.--RuSSELL Bank loan to create a new breadbasket for Lima. USAID GREENBERG. camein to completethe roadand ultimately refocused the projecton sustainableresource management. Un- der this plan, much of the valley is slated for a sil- vicultural projectthat was designedusing known eco- Bird Flight Performance:A Practical Calculation logical principlesof forestregeneration. Manual.--C. J. Pennycuick. 1989. Oxford, England, The book accuratelyreflects the mood of much of Oxford University Press.xi + 153 pp., 47 text figures. the international environmental community by fo- ISBN 0-19-857721-4. $49.95.--This book instructs the cusingon sustainabledevelopment rather than park readerhow to build machinesthat reportthe behavior establishment.Still, the overall view expressedis that of flying objects.The machinesreside in the memory the root causesof tropical deforestationare structural of a microcomputer,and the instructionsfor building flaws in the operationsof third world governments themare computerprograms 'written in BASIC.The and internationalassistance institutions based on ig- programsappear in an appendixand takeup 28 kilo- norance and mismanagement.The possibility that byteson a 5•Ainch floppy disk that comeswith the Terborgh has underestimatedthe depth of the prob- book. The disk can be used in an MS-DOS computer lem can be illustrated by the apparentcontradictions with a BASIC interpreter and printer. Once pro- in two of his major recommendations.On one hand grammed,the computerreports the behaviorof the he suggeststhat the United States stop funding flying objectsin tablesof numbersprinted on paper. (through the World Bank, InteramericanDevelop- I shall call theseobjects "ideal birds." ment Bank,and AID) all road-buildingprojects into One type of ideal bird flaps, and the other glides. unexploited tropical forests. On the other hand, he The ideal birds have several characteristics of real recommendsthe widescale development of multiple- birds: for example, body mass,some types of aero- useforestry with silvicultural management.How can dynamicdrag, the ability to fly in a horizontaldirec- sucha systembe establishedwithout building roads tion at a constantspeed when flapping,and the ability that will simply be conduitsfor further colonization? to changewingspan and areawhen gliding. They lack Can this and other similar conundrumsbe solved by other characteristics:for example,some types of aero- ecologically minded tinkering with development dynamicdrag, the ability to hover, and the ability to plans?Or are deeperquestions concerning the social changespeed in flight or to fly up or down when control of land and natural resources involved? The flapping. reader hopefully will be inspired to look elsewhere A personusing the programsmust specify the body for a more in-depth discussionof the issuessurround- massand wingspan of the ideal flapping bird plus ing tropicaldeforestation. the wing areaof the ideal gliding bird. The usermay One way to stop being mired in the global issues specifythe valuesof other characteristics,such as the surrounding deforestationis to focuson the specific amountof energy in metabolicfuel, the energyspent and the positive; big changesoften come from the in circulation and respiration,the profile drag coef- bottom up. Perhapsthe greatestomission is a discus- ficient, the induced drag factor, and the temperature sion of home-grown environmental movements in and pressureof the air. The computerdisplays these third world countries.This includes some straight- characteristics on a menu. If the user chooses not to away conservationgroups, such as ANCON in Pan- changetheir values,the programsuse default values. ama.It alsoincludes other socialand cultural groups The computerthen prints the tablesthat show the and movements, such as the Kuna in Panama, the "flight performance"of the ideal bird. The phrase rubber tappers in Brazil, and the Maya of Quintana refers to the motions of the bird relative to the air, Roo,which have all organizedaround forestconser- and the metabolicenergy requiredto makethese mo- vation and sustaineduse. In most cases,these groups tions. Examplesof quantitiesin the table for a flap- are fully engaged and require only resourcesand ping bird are airspeed,work rate to flap the wings, technicalassistance. Clearly, we do not have to invent metabolic rate, and the airspeed at which metabolic the wheel for international efforts to conserve habitat rate is minimum. Examplesfor a gliding bird are air- for migratory birds (and other threatenedorganisms). speed,wingspan, glide ratio, stall speed,circling ra- July 1990] Reviews 643

dius,and the optimal speedfor traveling cross-coun- been a (I wouldn't argue with "the") major contrib- try using thermals. It is remarkable that this much utor of original conceptsin this field for more than informationcan be generatedfrom only two or three 20 years. morphologicalmeasurements on a bird. When it comesto theories,Pennycuick is a lumper, The computerprograms obviously answer impor- not a splitter. He stateshis position explicitly: "As a tant questionsabout avian energetics,assuming that generalrule, the besttheory is the simplestthat pre- the flight performanceof a real bird is similar to that dictsthe resultswithin acceptablelimits of accuracy." of an ideal bird. They have an additional use,how- This rule fits his knack for describing a seemingly ever, when combined with the text. The reader can complex phenomenon with a simple equation. For investigatethe aerodynamicrelations describedin example,he usesjust two variablesin an equation to the bookby experimentingwith the programs.Pen- describe the relation between wingspan and wing nycuickopines that studentswho spenda rainyafter- areaof a gliding bird. Analyzing this relationin terms noon feeding data on birds' wings and bodies into of bone and feather positions on an actual bird is a the programsare in for endlesssurprises. He also much more complicatedprocess. suggestsusing fanciful data:a penguin flying in air Simple theories risk being incomplete, however. or a bird transportedto another planet with a differ- For example,both body-dragcoefficients and profile- ent atmosphereand gravitational acceleration. drag coefficientsof the wings depend on Reynolds My descriptionso far is of the "practicalcalculation number,which varieswith body size,air density,and manual" referred to in the title, but there is much speed.The program for gliding birds, however, ad- more to the book than that. The book offers an ex- juststhe body-dragcoefficient for bodysize, but does cellent introduction to the aerodynamicsof avian not changeeither coefficientwith speedor asthe user flight. This subjectlinks measurablecharacteristics of selects different air densities. Whether the results are a bird in the hand to the performanceof the bird in accuratewithin acceptablelimits cannotbe judged by flight through several interconnectedchains of rea- the user, who will expectthe body-dragcoefficient soning. It is a classicexample of hierarchicallyor- to changewith Reynoldsnumber but will not know ganized scientific knowledge. First come observa- from the text that the profile-drag coefficientshould tions,verbally expressed, followed by measurement changeas well. proceduresthat turn the observationinto quantities. The program alsoholds the profile-drag coefficient Some quantitiesare related to others, as shown by constantas the lift coefficientchanges. Pennycuick equationsin mathematicalnotation. Several equa- warns the reader that this simplification introduces tions contain common quantities,and the computer an error that is greatestat low speeds.Other theories programs organize the equations. Given the values of gliding flight cited in the book use a more com~ of certain quantities,the programscalculate values plicated program that allows the profile-drag coeffi- for all the rest. This sort of organizationprovides a cient to changewith both Reynoldsnumber and the degreeof understandingthat I would like to see in lift coefficient. many areasof biology. What is the relation between the ideal birds de- The book also includes a chapter on the perfor- scribed by Pennycuick'sprograms and real flying manceof flight muscles.This chapter describeswith birds?Pennycuick specifically leaves this important equationswhat I shall call "ideal muscles,"although questionfor the readerto answer.I shouldhave liked it doesnot include computerprograms. Ideal muscle more help from him. He doesshow that the metabolic performanceincludes force, speed of shortening,fre- ratesof pigeonsflying in a wind tunnel comparewell quencyof shortening,and the energeticcost of main- with the predictionsof the programs,but statesthat taining a steadyforce, as in holding the wings out data from other metabolic studiesof flapping birds during gliding. The chapteris an elegantanalysis of are not presentedexplicitly enough for the compar- how variousaspects of muscleperformance vary with ison to be made. It is not clear why some data are the massof a bird and influenceits flight perfor- inadequate.With regard to gliding birds, the reader mance. getsno adviceon choosingthe profile-dragcoefficient Pennycuickpresents this material in a way thatwill or information on where the default value in the appealboth to readerswho are mathematicallyin- program comesfrom. The reader also gets little help clined and thosewho are not. The book is mostly in choosingthe planform slope,which appearsin the words,with equationsand graphswhere needed.The relation between wingspan and area. Several pub- equationsare short and, with one or two exceptions, lished valuesfor thesequantities can be found in the use notation found in a high schoolalgebra course. original literature,as well asmeasurements of gliding Pennycuickemphasizes dimensional analysis, a tra- performancethat can be comparedwith the printed ditional tool in aerodynamics,and makes the appro- tables. priate point that it is useful in biology as well. This book is unique in two ways. First, it collects The book is well organizedand easyto read. Pen- scattered information from the literature into a com- nycuick writes in an informal, witty style, inter- prehensiveand detailed analysisof avian flight. Sec- spersedwith opinionsthat carryweight, sincehe has ond, it providescomputer programs that predict flight 644 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

performance. Anyone who does research on avian andcriticizes patterns of communityassembly (Chap. flight performancewill want this book on the shelf, 4), speciesnumbers and abundances (Chap. 5), niches and anyone interestedin flight will profit from read- andguilds (Chap. 6), ecomorphology (Chap. 7), species ing it and usingthe programs.University or museum distributions(Chap. 8), habitat selection(Chap. 9), librarieswith studentsof avianbiology among their resourceuse (Chap. 10), density compensationand clientele should have the book. It may be useful in niche shifts (Chap. 11), community convergence somecommunity libraries, but it goesfar beyond a (Chap.12), and bioenergeticapproaches (Chap. 13). verbal descriptionof how birds fly and is not meant Volume 1 closes with an examination of trends in the to be a comprehensivedescription of variousflight recentliterature (Chap. 14). Volume 2, on the other adaptations found in different species.--V^hlCEA. hand, deals more with the processesthat underlie TUCKER. communitypatterns and the importanceof variation. The firsttwo chaptersdescribe competition as a mech- anism, and then in Chaps. 3-5, Wiens explicitly ex- The Ecologyof Bird Communities.Vol. 1, Foun- amines other processesthat may influence commu- dations and Patterns; Vol. 2, Processes and Varia- nity patterns.These include predation,parasitism, tions.--John A. Wiens. 1989. Cambridge, England, disturbance,history, patchiness,and scale effects. CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge Studies in Wiens concludes Vol. 2 with a list of how we can Ecology.Vol. 1: xiv + 539 pp., 129text figures,ISBN improve future studies. 0-521-26030-2, $80.00; Vol. 2: xii + 316 pp., 62 text As the chief proponentof the nonequilibriumview figures,ISBN 0-521-36558-9, $65.00.--The take-home amongavian community ecologists, Wiens brings clear messageof JohnWiens' massive two-volume set may biases to these volumes. Wiens follows a consistent well be that "doing communityecology is not easy" patternin histreatment of eachof thepatterns in Vol. (Vol. 1: 68). When I first saw the advertisement for 1, Chaps.4-12. First,he describesgeneral patterns in thesebooks I immediatelyordered them, in spite of fairly neutralterms. If the patternshave been used the ratherextravagant price. I waseager to readwhat to supportcompetition and equilibrium-basedinter- Wienshad to sayabout the futureof aviancommunity pretationsof communitystructure, he criticizesspe- ecologynow that the greatcompetition debate of the cific studieson the basis of the logic, methods, sta- late 1970s to mid-1980s has abated somewhat. How tistics,underlying assumptions,lack of consideration do we incorporatenew ideasabout habitat fragmen- of alternativehypotheses, or general applicability. tation, the role of predation,and scaleeffects into our Wiens often constructs an alternative scenario, which subdiscipline?Is there a new "paradigm"emerging is basedon different processes,that cannotbe ruled to replace the competition-basedMacArthur ap- out with the available data. proachthat is basedon equilibrium models?What The works of Martin Cody, JaredDiamond, James doesavian communityecology tell us aboutthe im- Brown, and John Terboughcome under particularly portant issuesof conservationbiology? frequent criticism, often in considerabledetail. For Ultimately,I was not disappointed,but the reader example,Terborgh's study of elevationaldistribu- shouldbe warned that a very large portion of these tions in the Andes is criticized on the basis of meth- volumesis a review of the shortcomingsof previous odologicallimitations (overreliance on mistnets) and studiesof avian communities,especially studies ad- the assumptionthat the different elevational gradi- vocatinginterspecific competition. Wiens' topic is ents being comparedare ecologicallysimilar except "communityecology as it hasbeen practiced on birds in their bird speciescomposition. The latter problem, rather than bird communitiesper se" (Vol. 1:xi). Wiens which Wiens calls a "ceterisparibus" (all else being doesnot explicitlydeal with the future of community equal)assumption, is a basicelement in Wiens' crit- ecologyuntil Vol. 2, after morethan 600 pagesof icismsof all studiesthat comparespecies abundances mostly critical reviews of previousstudies. Fortu- and distributions in different geographicalareas. nately,Wiens writes well andshows enthusiasm for Wiens does not accept"natural experiments"unless the future of communityecology in spiteof the dif- the resources,vegetation structure, climate, and other ficulties he documents so well. ecologicalfactors such as predation have been mea- The bookis split into two volumes,each with dif- sured and shown to be similar in the sites or years ferent, but overlapping,emphases. Volume 1 deals being compared. with the patternsthat havebeen documented in bird At times,Wiens seemsovereager to leave no estab- communities.Part I brieflyreviews the historyof avi- lishedpattern unchallenged.Consider the following an communityecology (Chap. 1), the philosophical quotation:"Simberloff and Boecklen(personal com- and logicalunderpinnings of communityecology in munication), however, criticized Moulton and Pimm's general(Chap. 2), and the methodsthat havebeen analysisof theHawaiian Islands introductions [which used (Chap. 3). Wiens arguesthat most community showedevidence of competitionbetween species with studieshave been subjectto both logicaland meth- similar bill sizes]on severalcounts (e.g. inappropriate odologicalflaws, and reviewsKuhnian "paradigms" statisticaltests, incomplete documentations of intro- and PopperJanphilosophy of science.Part II presents ductions and/or extinctions, incorrect definition of July1990] Reviews 645

speciespools) ..." (Vol. I: 205). Basingsuch strong Wienshypothesizes that short-lived environmental criticismson an unpublished "personal communica- crunches characterize many bird communities, es- tion" seemsa bit risky, regardlessof whether or not peciallythe shrub-steppecommunities. If foodis su- Simberloffand Boecklen'sobjections are corrector perabundant most of the time, community structure have been published subsequently.Similar refer- and resourcesmay be only "coarsely"related (Vol. 2: encesto unpublishedstudies that refute competition- 158),and communitiesare unlikely to be in equilib- basedinterpretations occur on pages87, 94, and 368 rium. Wiens givesonly the briefestmention of the (Vol. 1) and page 177 (Vol. 2). Passagessuch as these Hubbard Brookbird communityin which periodsof give the impressionthat Wiens is determined not to food superabundanceoccur at long, irregular inter- let those who advocatesome patterns have the last vals, and "food resourcesare apparently often lim- word. iting andcompetition may be important" (Vol. 2: 159). In contrast, studies that criticize establishedpat- Givenmy own biases(which are closerto the "equi- ternsor that showpatterns suggesting processes other librium" view than Wiens'), I would have liked to see than competitionare subjectedto only mild criticism Holmes' studies at Hubbard Brook given more em- or are acceptedat face value. The work of Scandi- phasis.Wiens cites the manyHubbard Brook studies navian ecologists,for example, receives extensive, frequently,but usuallyonly in passing.Sherry and largely uncritical coveragein both volumes,perhaps Holmes'(1988, Auk 105:350) experimental documen- becausethey tend to treat interspecificcompetition tation of competitiveinteractions between Least Fly- asjust one of manyprocesses that influencebird com- catchersand American Redstarts,for example, is men- munities.Not surprisingly,Wiens also frequently uses tioned only parentheticallyon page 193 (Vol. 2). his own work in shrub-steppehabitats where he and Holmes and his colleaguesdo not argue that com- his co-workers (especially John Rotenberry) have petitive interactions dominate community structure. consistentlyfailed to find patterns suggestingcom- If anything, they argue that communitystructure is munity equilibrium. Wiens also effectively useshis dictatedby individualisticresponses of speciesto a own work to illustrate scale effects,patchiness, and, wide variety of factors,of which interspecificcom- above all, year-to-year and site-to-site variability. petition is just one. They have, however, provided Wiens acknowledgesDunning's (1986, Am. Nat. 128: the best documentationof the processesunderlying 82) assertionthat shrub-steppebird communitiesmay long-termpopulation changes, some of which clearly not be typical of North American bird communities involve interspecificcompetition. The Hubbard Brook becausethey contain so few numerically dominant studymight also have provided an excellentexample species.He counters this argument by saying that of a studythat documentsboth patterns and processes "becausethere is a wide range of speciesrichness in in a reasonablydiverse mainland community. These bird communities .... it seems doubtful that one can volumes could use more "success" stories to encour- label any of them as 'typical' of bird communitiesin age future community ecologists. general" (Vol 1: 370). Nevertheless,shrub-steppe Volume 2 has the mostto offer current practitioners communitiesare at the low-diversityend of the con- of avian communityecology. The first two chapters tinuum of bird communities. deal with interspecificcompetition as a process.For Wiens acceptsan important role for interspecific the mostpart, thesetwo chaptersrepeat points he has competition in several of his "featured" cases.He alreadymade, albeit in greaterdetail. Wienscontin- exhaustivelyreviews the work of Peter Grant and his ues to advocateexperimental and long-term studies colleagueson Galapagosfinches and concludesthat that measure populations, resources,climate, and speciesdo track resourcesand competein certain sit- vegetationstructure simultaneously. He alsoempha- uations.Wiens questionsthe applicability of "closed" sizesthe difficultyof predictingwhether or not niche islandsituations in which dispersaland migration are overlap will increaseor decreasewhen resourcesbe- limited to mainland situations where events occur- comescarce or abundant.On page62, Wiensacknowl- ring far from the studysite may influence populations edgesthat there is a "basicasymmetry between the of migratoryspecies. Similarly, he devotesan entire weight of evidence required to falsify and that re- chapter of Vol. 2 to evidence of competitive interac- quired to corroboratean hypothesis."This disparity tions among nectarivores,which he finds "convinc- is one of the mostdiscouraging aspects of community ing" (Vol. 2: 87). Wiensadds, however, that the "dis- ecology.Perhaps for this reason,community ecology tinctive featuresof nectaras a resourceand the high in the 1980ssometimes seemed to be makinga dogma degreeof specializationof many nectarivorespredis- of rejectinghypotheses, especially those relating to pose these systemsto be competitive,"and "that it competitionrather than constructingnew biological would be a mistaketo generalize from them to other (asopposed to "null") hypotheses(Martin 1986,Curt. sortsof bird communities"(Vol. 2: 88). He might have Ornithol. 4: 181). addedstudies of tropical birds that follow army ant Fortunately, Wiens does discussalternative pro- swarms(Willis and Oniki 1978,Ann. Rev. Ecol.Syst. cessesin Chap. 3. The sectionon predation reviews 9: 243) to the list of situationswhere competitivein- the often underemphasizedliterature that showsthat teractionsare particularly obvious. predationon nestsand adults can modify or eliminate 646 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 107

the effectsof interspecific competition. Wiens shows ment doesnot necessarilyindicate the establishment that predation alsoplays a major role in communities of a breeding population" (Vol. 2: 206). Wiens argues in small forest patches,where predation rates can be that "to emphasizethe effectsof one aspectof frag- extremelyhigh, and on islands,where predationrates mentation(typically area) to the exclusionof others may be very low. The tremendousyear-to-year vari- is . .. unrealistic" (Vol. 2: 212) because other factors ationsin predation ratesin somesystems suggest that such as patch isolation, edge, forest structure, and the effectsof predation on community structuremay floristicdiversity alsoplay a role. be difficult to predict. Martin (1988, Ecology69: 74) Wiens also maintains that the "MacArthur-Wilson has even hypothesizedthat predation pressuresmay theory [of islandbiogeography] and the designprin- be a "major selectiveforce promoting partitioning of ciples derived from it are of quite limited value in nestingheights or microhabitatsby specieswith sim- planning nature preserves"(Vol. 2: 227). The debate ilar nest types" (Vol. 2: 98). Wiens cautions that we over whether a single large reserve is superior to really do not know to what extentpredation regulates severalsmall reservesis probably"largely irrelevant" bird populations.Wiens also acknowledgesthe pos- (Vol. 2: 227), at least in part becauseestablishing re- sible importanceof brood parasitismby cowbirds(es- serves "requires both a consideration of broad-scale pecially in fragmented habitats), internal parasites, landscapeconfigurations and knowledge of the eco- and such commensal and mutualistic interactions as logical requirementsof the speciesthat are important multispeciesnesting assemblages. in particular situations"(Vol. 2: 220). Raptors,for ex- Chapter3 alsoemphasizes the potentialrole of dis- ample, clearly need larger preservesthan small mi- turbancein bird communities.Wiens arguesthat birds gratorypassetines. I found the sectionon habitat frag- may have a degreeof resilienceto small-scaledistur- mentation to be the most thought-provokingpart of bancesbecause of their mobility and that site tenacity the whole book, perhaps becauseI believe that the may cause time lags in responsesto major distur- strongestjustification for continuing to study com- bances.There are, however, somespecies that depend munity ecologyis its importancefor conservationbi- on disturbancesin both forestand grasslandhabitats. ology. Wiens might alsohave included referencesto tropical Chapter 5 concludeswith a section on the impor- forest bird communities, which are strongly influ- tance of scale,which can be an overwhelmingly im- encedby river-createddisturbances (Terborgh 1985: portant considerationwhen designing and inter- 311-338 in Habitat selectionin birds [M. L. Cody, Ed.], pretingcommunity studies. Wiens argues, for example, New York, Academic Press).Wiens concludesChap. that populationsseem more stablewhen viewed at a 3 with one of severalenormous tables outlining the regionalscale, but that temporaltracking of food re- extent to which each pattern can have several un- sources occurs more at a local scale. Wiens states that derlying processes. the conceptsof "source-sinkpatch relationships,for Part II of Vol. 2 deals with the ways communities example,may provide someinsights into the extinc- vary in time and space.In Chap. 4 Wiens developsa tion and colonizationdynamics of populationsat the verbal model of population"sources" that producea scalesof regions or landscapemosaics, but they are surplus and population "sinks" that depend on im- inappropriate at the level of biogeographicranges migrantsfrom sourceareas (pp. 172-173).This model (where Brown has mistakenly applied them) or at a is proving to have a great deal of relevancein studies very local, within-patch scale"(Vol. 2: 233). Unfor- of avian population dynamicsin fragmentedhabitats tunately, Wiens does not explain why Brown's ap- (Pulliam 1988, Am. Nat. 132: 652). Wiens also dis- proach is a mistake. He concludesthat the "greatest cussespossible causesof long-term population de- insightsmay be obtainedif oneconsiders several levels clines, some of which appear to be related to events of a hierarchy of scales"(Vol. 2: 240). I particularly on the wintering grounds, of Europeanand North share his view that we need to know more about American birds. Wiens follows Holmes et al. (1986, dispersalbecause it "bearsimportantly on... the dy- Ecol.Monogr. 56: 201) in arguingthat "thereare plen- namics of populations and communities in patchy ty of reasonsto be alarmedabout the acceleratingrate landscapes,as it influences the probabilities of local of destructionof tropicalforests, but a lossof birds extinction in habitat patchesor fragments, of their from forests in eastern North America is not un- subsequentrecolonization, or of their 'rescue'before equivocallyone of them" (p. 195).Wiens concludes extinction occurs" (Vol. 2: 246). his section on variation with a plea for long-term Volume 2 closeswith a chapteron future directions studieson both a local and a regionalscale. that servesas both a summaryof the take-homemes- The first part of Chap. 5 deals with the effectsof sagesof earlier chaptersand a rallying cry. Wiens habitat fragmentation, which Wiens contrastswith echoesa universal concern among community.ecol- gap formation.As usual,Wiens drawsextensively on ogiststhat the "complexity,variability, and ambiguity the Europeanand Australian literature to shed light of nature have made communityecology more diffi- on the situation in North America. He observes that cult and lessened its allure" (Vol. 2: 251). He fears studiesrelying solely on presence/absencedata are that many ecologistsmay "become discouragedin flawed because"the presenceof a speciesin a frag- their attempts to understand communities and will July 1990] Reviews 647 turn their attention to entirely different questions" or mechanisticprojects for a thesis.For studentswho (Vol. 2: 251) such as behavioral ecology. As a first want to strike out on their own, avian community step, theoreticians need to stop "doing violence to ecology may be too difficult or risky.--ScoTT K. nature by oversimplification,"especially in the as- ROBINSON. sumptionsunderlying models. He advocates"oper- ational theory" (Vol. 2: 253) that generates"predic- tions that are testableor are useful in management" with explicitly statedassumptions. "Theoreticians can OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST offer a variety of possibleexplanations for a phenom- enon, from which empiricistsmust determine which The Birds of Sicily.--Carmelo Iapichino and Bruno are likely to be correct"(Vol. 2: 254). Wiens claimsto Massa. 1989. Tring, England, Br. Ornithol. Union offer no new paradigm to replacethe MacArthurJan Check-listNo. 11. 170 pp., 8 figures, 16 black-and- approach.He arguesthat "the traditional views have white plates. ISBN 0-907446-10-8.Cloth. œ16.00(in becometransformed so that they are scarcelyrecog- U.K.), œ18.00(overseas).--This is the latest in the fine nizable and the call for a 'pluralism of approaches' seriesof regional checklistsproduced by the British (e.g. Schoener1986) has become almost a cliche" (Vol. OrnithologistsUnion and coversan island that has 2: 257). Wiens arguesthat "no unified approachhas received relatively little attention by ornithologists, yet emergedand I doubt that one will" (Vol. 2: 257), comparedwith other Mediterraneanislands like Cy- and closeswith a list of points that need to be con- prus,Malta, or the Balearics.This annotatedchecklist sidered in new approaches. of the avifauna, following on the AtlasFaunae Siciliae After finishing the two volumes, I was left with producedby Massa(1985, Aves. Naturalista Sicil. 9 mixed feelings about his view of the history and fu- (spec.):1-242), hasnow filled a gapin our knowledge. ture of community ecology.Wiens tackled an enor- The main body of the text comprisesa systematic mous topic and did a remarkably thorough job. Each list of the 363 speciesthat have occurredon the island volume containsmore than 900 references,and many through December1987. A 22-pageintroduction cov- studies are criticized in great detail. In addition to ers the history of Sicilian ornithology, geography, the topics I have mentioned, Wiens also gives thor- climate, vegetation, migration, breeding, conserva- ough coverageof seabirdecology, ecophysiology, null tion, and aspectsof the avifaunalike isolation.At the hypotheses, island biogeography, ecomorphology, back of the book are 16 pages of data on banding interspecific territoriality, and community conver- recoveries and that all-important but often over- gence.I would have emphasizeddifferent studies,but looked item, which should be mandatory for every I have different biases.Wiens' purpose seemsto be checklist,a gazetteer. to wipe the slateclean of the dogmaof the 1960sand Although the main achievement of this work is 1970s and start anew in more rigorous ways. He is ornithological,it is to be hopedthat it may alsohave remarkably consistent,if at times overzealous,in his someimpact on the conservationof what remainsof criticismsof the traditional approaches.I stronglyrec- Sicily'snatural areas.Although the island has had a ommend Vol. 2 for graduate students interested in large human populationfor many years,habitat de- studying community ecologyand conservationbiol- struction has acceleratedin the last 30 years, espe- ogy as well as those currently involved in research cially on the coast,where so much land has been and management.Volume i will be more useful to given over to holiday resortsthat few coastalwet- thoseinterested in the history of communityecology, lands or other natural areas remain. Hunting pres- especiallyin the great competitiondebate. Both vol- sures remain intense, and efforts to restrict them meet umes are well written with a minimum of technical with strenuouslocal opposition.If this book can help jargon and could therefore also be used in an ad- through educationto reduce these destructiveprac- vanced undergraduateclass. These volumes should tices, it will have achieved a dual purpose.--STUART be a high priority for all college and university li- KEITH. braries. My qualmsrelate largely to the possibilitythat many studentsmay be discouragedby the overall tone of these volumes.One could easily concludethat com- Birds of Colonial Williamsburg: A Historical munity ecologycan be done properly only in long- Portfolio.--A. Feduccia.1989. Williamsburg, Virgin- term, multiscale research projects that measure ia, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation. 162 pp., 70 col- resourcesand habitat structureand conduct manip- or illustrations by H. D. Pratt. ISBN 0-87935-113-6. ulations that considereach of many alternative pro- $29.95.--This is a picture book with a twist: selected cesses.In other words, community ecologyseems to commentsof historicalobservers. The Williamsburg require lots of money and time, which are not avail- area, Virginia's colonial capital, was visited by such able to many students.Perhaps the only way for stu- luminaries as Mark Gatesbyand John Lawson. Activ- dentsto get startedis to join one of the few established ity began in the area in the late 1500s,so there is a long-term studiesand do smaller, more reductionist richnessthat comesfrom the epigraphs with each 648 Other items [Auk, Vol. 107

speciesdescription. Feducciaconnects the reader di- The platesare clearand well executed,and the draw- rectly with the early observationsand follows with ings are exceptional.Most important, it functions as further quotesin the text. The presentationis elegant. a field guide. The accountsinclude all the standard Pratt's bird paintings include buildings and other information: description,habitat, similar species,sta- backgroundobjects from Williamsburg.The pictures tus and distribution, habits, and range. Taxonomic are generallywell done.Feduccia's text is light, refers disputesare notedbriefly. The treatmentis thorough, constantlyto earlierwriters, and is filled with natural- and this is easily the best guide to the area and will history notes.--A.H.B. set the standardfor yearsto come.It encompassesan up-to-datesummary of the occurrenceand abundance of the birds of central America (the checklist runs to 1,100entries). More is yet to be learned,and this book A Guide to the Birds of Panama.--R. S. Ridgely will serve as a reliable and stimulating guide. and J. A. Gwynne. 1989. Seconded. Princeton, New The "Panama Guide" arrived just about the time Jersey,Princeton University Press.xvi + 534 pp., 48 23,000 U.S. troops landed in Panama City. Subse- color plates text drawings. ISBN 0-691-08529-3. quently, a new government has been installed and $49.50.--This is the second edition of a volume pro- the former "maximumRuler" sitsin a jail cell in Miami. ducedalmost 15 yearsago. It is significantbecause so As the news broke it becameclear that placesof or- much in it has changed. Ridgely and Gwynne have nithological interest (especiallyin Darien Province) expandedthe coveragegeographically (Costa Rica, were also of interest to the military and drug traf- Honduras, and Nicaragua are included) and have fickers.Some of the birding sitesin the east(p. 486 added more than 200 speciesand 16 new color plates. if.) are thought to provide passagefor pro-Noriega Over the period sincethe first edition, the informa- troopsfrom Colombia.While theseactivities and bird tion on Panama'sbirds hasincreased many fold. This study may not be mutually exclusive, it does give is reflectedin the updatesof essentiallyall the species one pause.The prime issueis accessand safety.Equal- accounts. ly important is the potential destructionof habitat. The book is organizedvery much like the others Panama,which previously has been reasonablyac- in the "guide" seriesand meetsall the professional cessible,now becomesmore risky, at least until the standardsexpected from PrincetonUniversity Press. current situation stabilizes.--A.H.B.

DATEOF ISSUE (Vol. 107, No. 3): 27 July 1990