PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 81 



Vol. Ill, ]\o. 6. Washington, D. C. July 1, 1884. 



(3.) Finally we will have to consider the question why the triuominal 

 designation is to be jireferred. 



I need not repeat the many good reasons admirably set forth by Prof. 

 J. A. Allen in the first number of "The Auk," but I will simply state 

 why I have been of late converted to trinominalism. The question 

 with me hinged on the consideration that in all probability we would 

 have to give up the hope of seeing these forms recognized at all if we 

 would not consent to having them designated differently from the species. 

 There are still many ornithologists who would rather suffer the local races 

 to be extinguished from our books than they would allow them to carry 

 the "sacred" binomiuals. To them the subspecies are pariahs, which 

 must not be admitted to the " rank " of the aristocratic species. I, my- 

 self, thfnk better of the poor subspecies, believing that scieuce in time, 

 when they are fully understood, will derive great benefit from their rec- 

 ognition, and consequently I accept the cumbersome trinominals rather 

 than to see them go around without any name at all. 



I regard the trinominals as a nuisance, but as a very necessary nui- 

 sance, unfortunately. However, I find I can get along with them very 

 well. 



Before dismissing the subject I should like to call the attention of 

 American ornithologists to the fact that there are other conditions which 

 may affect the differentiation of subspecific (first, and afterwards specific) 

 forms than the geographical distribution of the present day. And in 

 order to learn just what these conditions are it is very important to have 

 the subspecies distingnished. The geographical range of a bird is by 

 no means a very stable thing, and may change comparatively rapidly, 

 for many reasons. It may therefore be that some of the variations date 

 back to a — perhaps not so very — distant time wlieu the range of the 

 form was one quite different from the present one. The fact that the 

 differentiation in a certain form does not agree with what we conclude 

 it ought to do comi)ared with other forms of simihir geographical dis- 

 tribution must not lead us to disregard their differences. 



Smithsonian Institution, 



Washington, D. (J., May 12, 1884. 



DESCRIPTIONS OF SCAROID FISHES FROM HAVANA AND KEY 

 WEST, INCLUDING FIVE NEW SPECIES. 



B> OAVID S. JORDAN and JOiliEPII SWAIN. 



In a recent collecting tour to Havana, Cuba, and Key West, Florida, 

 Professor Jordan obtained a considerable number of Scaroid fishes, rep- 

 resenting fourteen species. Seven of these were secured at Key West 

 Proc. Nat. Mus. 84 6 



