4 Museum NOotTEs

through virgin territory. The acceptance of the evolutionary viewpoint has also intro-
duced a new standard. A scientific naturalist is expected to have a keen eye for
adaptations to environment, and characteristics and habits which may throw light upon
descent and relationship. Lastly, Lord is known to-day almost entirely through “The
Naturalist in B. C."£ It seems likely that this work, published some five years after
his return from North America, was put together in response to the increasing demand
for information about British Columbia in consequence of the interest aroused by the
gold discoveries. It bears evidence of being hastily written. It has neither the literary
form, nor the coherence, of the series of articles he wrote on his work as naturalist
to the Khedive’s Expedition to the Sinai Peninsula, but which were not reprinted. Only
once—February 29, 1860—is the year given, this being the date on which he left
Esquimalt for California in quest of remounts. It is only fair to say, however, that
the day of the month is often, perhaps usually, given in connection with observations,
so that seasonal relation of the phenomenon observed is established. While waiting
for H.M.S. Havannah to take the Commission to Victoria, Lord visited the Island of
Taboga near Panama, and makes several references to it, always as Tobago, the name
of an Island in the British West Indies. There are other typographical minor inac-
curacies of this nature.

The reputation of a naturalist stands or falls by the accuracy of his observations
and records. While the range, extent, and interpretation of such observations natur-
ally contribute to this standing, reliability is the first essential. The one glaring mis-
take made by Lord is in connection with the nesting habits of the North-West or Fish
Crow. “The sea-coast is abandoned when the breeding time arrives early in May,
when they resort in pairs to the interior; selecting a patch of open prairie, where there
are streams and lakes and where the wild crabapple and white thorn grow, in which
they build nests precisely like that of the Magpie, arched over the top with sticks. This
is so marked a difference to the Barking Crow’s nesting as in itself to be a specific
distinction. I examined great numbers of nests at this prairie (Sumas) and on the
Columbia, but invariably found that the same habit of doming prevailed. After nest-
ing, they return with the young to the sea-coast and remain in large flocks, often
associated with Barking Crows, until nesting time comes again.” (Vol. IL, p. 70).
Upon this, Dawson & Bowles comment, “No single point of which has been confirmed
by succeeding observers.”* In fact, it seems to be the concensus of opinion among
ornithologists that Lord has confused the nests of the crow and the magpie. If this
were, in any sense. a measure of the general calibre of our naturalist, it would not be
worth while pursuing the subject any further. Fortunately, it is the only downright
blunder I have been able to locate.

In Vol. I, p. 83, of the “Naturalist,” the statement occurs, “earthworms do not
exist in British Columbia.” To the possessors of gardens in or around Vancouver, the
veracity of such an assertion would seem to be of even a lower order than that of the
afore-mentioned crows and magpies. Yet it would appear that Lord is, if not abso-
lutely, at least substantially correct. Various “old-timers” here inform me that earth-
worms only appeared in their gardens after cultivation and planting. In this con-
nection I will quote from a letter from Prof. J. Percy Moore, of the University of
Pennsylvania, and an authority on annelids. “I know Lord’s book very well, having
used it some years ago in connection with some work on North Pacific Polychaeta.
Lord seemed to me to ba an accurate and reliable observer and I should give careful
consideration to any statement made by him.

+“Naturalist,” Vol. I., p. 199.
*“Birds of Washington,” Vol. I., p. 14.