GEODASILEUS. 



289 



where the name, by overshadowing the fact, ceases to be the convenient handle for which it is 

 primarily intended. The tail begins to wag the dog, and, in the eyes of some, it really seems 

 to be more important than the dog. 



"Another, but less potent cause for the rise of the subspecies is found in the unnecessary 

 prominence accorded it in our books and other publications. Wherever we turn we find it, to 

 all appearances, on equal terms with the full species. It is clothed in the same type, while 

 descriptions, measurements, synonymy and other matters are displayed independently as if 

 every name were of ecjual value. No wonder the impression is created that the subspecies is 

 quite as important as, the species and deserving of the same treatment. We forget that, as 

 names multiply, they lose in defimteness of meaning, and that the standard by which races are 

 measured falls m direct proportion to the number of names resulting from new campaigns over 

 old ground. Ornithology, in North America at least is suffering from too many campaigns. 



"But the mind of the young ornithologist is strongly influenced by what his elders do, 

 and if they make much of the subspecies he is likely to do the same. Hence, if we expend so 

 much effort in seeking new lines of geographical cleavage, it is not inconceivable that our 

 successors may reduce our splinters to sawdust and bestow a name upon each and every grain. 

 It is to be hoped, however, that the limits of the human eye and of the vernier scale will not be 

 the only goal of the ornithologist, for true science does not receive much uplifting hom the 

 mere renaming of a few handfuls of skin and feathers. How well revision and renaming have 

 worked in the past, when the species were the units, is shown by the long array of synonyms 

 that burden many a page. Synonymy might fittingly be called the science of the blunders of 

 our predecessors, and we ourselves shall need deHverance from an intolerable load of names 

 unless our fragile subspecific refinements are woven of stronger threads. We discover and 

 name trivialities because we like to do it, and new names loom very large even if they mean 

 little. We confuse nomenclature and ornithology, forgetful that names which should be the 

 tools of the ornithologist may easily become the playthings of the systematist. If the sub- 

 species be relegated to its proper place and held in proper perspective, we shall neither flounder 

 in a flood of names nor fail to perceive the opportunities which lie open before us. There is 

 more serious work on hand than the naming of subspecies, if the advance of ornithology is to 

 keep pace with that of kindred sciences." 



Trinomial nomenclature has not been adopted by Australian Ornithologists, although that 

 does not protect Australian ornithological literature from the hair-splitting of the most ardent 

 subspecies-maker resident elsewhere. Comparatively very few British and Continental Ornith- 

 ologists make use of the subspecific distinction. It is useful, however, and has this advantage, 

 one knows at a glance that the added trinomial refers only to a geographical variation of a 

 typical form; whereas in binomial nomenclature, one may possibly discover after the loss of 

 much time in searching out an original description, that the supposed specific value does 

 not exist, and that a name has been given to a form that very often does not merit even 

 subspecific recognition. As referred to by Dr. Dwight, the separation of the geographical 

 variations of a typical form is strained by some writers almost to the breaking point, or quite 

 so, thereby encumbering the ornithological literature of many species with useless synonyms 

 which are neither flattering to the describers of them, nor of interest to the student or general 

 reader. 



