SUB-SPECIES AND THE FIELD NATURALIST. 519 



•obtained and named the skins had not recognised the importance 

 ■of getting with them correct data, or had accepted the first state- 

 ment made without further inquiry. Now-a-days binomialism 

 does not suffice to cover the whole range of differentiation in 

 species, because Field Naturalists have shown from their obser- 

 vations that species vary according to their geographical distribu- 

 tion, as governed by varying conditions of temperature, humidity, 

 ^and many other factors. It is to describe these variations in the 

 shortest manner possible that trinomials, or sub-species, have 

 come into use. Now the whole of the material facts upon which 

 this work of trinomialism can be carried out must be collected by 

 Field Naturalists, and it is only from their discoveries and obser- 

 vations that the Museum Naturalists have data xipon which they 

 •draw their reductions and form their conclusions. For instance, 

 no Museum Naturalist can take 1,000 specimens of a species col- 

 lected in any one country and say, •• Here we have so many 

 variations in structure or colouration which constitute so many 

 «ub-species." It is not until the careful Field Observer gives him 

 information as to where, when and how each specimen has been 

 collected, in what kind of country and at what elevation it has 

 been found that the Museum man can tell whether the variations 

 are merely individual or are the effect of an environment which 

 necessitates or encourages their evolution. 



Classification of the living members of the Class "^4res," like 

 -every other classification, is intended to simplifj^ or make easy the 

 attainment of knowledge. In the present instance it should 

 assist in the acquirement of knowledge, both of ornithology as a 

 whole, as well as of each individual species, its life history, and 

 -all other facts connected with it. If the classification employed 

 helps towards this end, it is scientific ; if, on the other hand, it 

 renders the acquisition of knowledge more difficult, it is not 

 scientific, and should be discarded. 



But the writer of the letter to which I have referred, and a few 

 ■others of similar mentality, do not argue on these lines. In effect, 

 what they do say is this : " The old system of dividing birds into 

 species is sufficient for me, and I have no desire to learn anything 

 more. I do not intend to have anything to do with the attempt 

 of modern ornithologists to work out the marvellous evolution of 

 Nature in forming variations to suit the needs of their immediate 

 •environments. It is nothing to me that Nature evolves a dark 

 bird which may obtain safety in the deep shadows of evergreen 

 forest, whilst its cousin attains a white or pale coat which renders 

 it inconspicuous in snow or sunlit grass-land. It is of no interest 

 to me to know that a migratory bird has developed long wings, 

 whilst its sedentarjr relation has them shorter and weaker." 



