38 



Bird- Lore 



iltrti Eore 



A Bi-monthly Magazine 

 Devoted to the Study and Protection of Birds 



OFFICIAL ORCAN OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETIES 



Edited by FRANK M. CHAPMAN 

 Published by THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 



Vol. Ill Published February 1. 1901 No. 1 



SUBSCRIPTION RATES 



Price in the Ignited States, Canada, and Mexico 

 twenty cents a number, one dollar a year, post- 

 age paid. 



Subscriptions may be sent to the Publishers, at 

 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or 66 Fifth avenue, New 

 york City. 



Price in all countries in the International Postal 

 Union, twenty-five cents a number, one dollar and 

 a quarter a year, postage paid. Foreign agents, 

 Macmillan AND Company, Ltd., London. 



COPYRIGHTED, 1901, BY FRANK M. CHAPMAN. 



Bird-Lore's Motto : 

 A Bird in the Bush is Worth Two in the Hand. 



A Question of the Day 



There is a certain type of systematic 

 orriithoiogist to whom ornithology means 

 comparing specimens and solving nomen- 

 clatiiral problems, with the sole and ultimate 

 object of changing the existing names of 

 birds and creating new ones. He is some- 

 times sneeringly designated by the siifficient- 

 unto-himself layman, a 'closet naturalist.' 



This same supercilious critic is doubtless 

 indebted to the closet naturalist's text-books 

 for most, if not all, of his exact knowledge 

 of birds' names and consequent proper 

 classification of whatever he may have 

 learned of the birds themselves, but with a 

 fine combination of conceit, ignorance, and 

 ingratitude, he loses no opportunity to hurl 

 a figurative stone at the unconscious author 

 of his information. 



There is, however, another side to this 

 subject; in his endeavor to make plain the 

 relationships of birds, the systematist may 

 go too far. Long familiarity with specimens 

 has so sharpened his appreciation of their 

 differences in size, form, and color, that he 

 is led to lattach undue importance to varia- 

 tions which are barely, if at all, apparent 

 to the untrained eye. The question is, 



where shall he draw the line in naming 

 these geographical races, or subspecies, as 

 they are termed? It is of course assumed 

 that his investigations are conducted with 

 no undue desire for renown through the 

 exploitation of his own name appended to 

 that of the birds he may describe, but that 

 they are made in the interests of ornithology. 

 'I'he question may be repeated then, how 

 far may we go in this division and subdi- 

 vision of geographical races and best serve 

 the ends of the study of birds? 



In publishing a list of North American 

 birds which should harmonize the views 

 of various authorities, the American Orni- 

 thologists' Union raised as its standard 

 the motto: "Zoological nomenclature is a 

 means, not an end, of zocUogical science." 

 That is, before we can study birds we must 

 give to them certain names in order that we 

 may properly label whatever we may learn 

 concerning them and thus render our dis- 

 coveries available to others. 



It is, or should be, therefore, the object of 

 the systematist to so describe birds that 

 they will be recognizable, thereby preparing 

 the way for further investigation. When, 

 however, he gives names to differences so 

 slight that even experts in his own field 

 cannot with certainty apply the right name 

 to the right bird, it is obvious that he is not 

 serving, but defeating the aims of science. 



Doubtless the 'splitter,' as this type of 

 systematist is called, would deny that his 

 hypersensitive powers of discrimination had 

 led him to such extremes. Let us, therefore, 

 examine somewhat into his methods. 



When specimens of our birds first came 

 into the hands of European naturalists, 

 many of them were considered identical 

 with certain European species; but as they 

 increased in collections their characters be- 

 came more definitely understood and being 

 found to differ more or less from Old World 

 forms they were given names of their own 

 (e. g., Cerlhio familiaris Americana, Los/a 

 cur-1'irostra Americana). Though at first 

 these birds, following the customs of the 

 times, were ranked as species, this was 

 virtually the beginning in the subspecific 

 separation of our birds. 



It was not until the Pacific railroad 



