92 



THE OSPREY. 



Till- eiitonidlofi-ist has mastered the difficulty. 

 The entire ( )sciiio f^rcuip. fi>r the sake of arj^ii- 

 nieiit, may be considered a family (Frini^illidiii' 

 if you will) and the primary divisions, generally 

 called families, can be desijfnated as subfami- 

 lies. The next divisions, generally denomi- 

 nated subfamilies, may then be called fjroups 

 and f,'iven a name from the typical genera in a 

 plural form. Thus we may have a family J''t'iii- 

 ilillichr. a subfamily Friua^illincc ( family /•'riii- 

 i^itlidcc of most), and a group FriiigiUa-. These 

 categories, in my opinion, would be sufficient, 

 but if others re<|uire uujre, they can still follow 

 the entonu>logist and interpose between the sub- 

 family and the group trilies and subtribes and 

 even sui'Hkc.knkka between a g'roup and g'enera. 



Some of the readers of Thk OsprKY may think 

 that these views as to the slig"ht value of the 

 characters distinctive of the so-called families 

 of Oscines are peculiar to myself. Therefore I 

 hasten to disown any claim to originality or to 

 credit. Several of the masters of avine taxon- 

 oniv have expressed similar opinions. 



Alphonse Milne-Edwards, in preparing- for his 

 g-reat work on fossil birds, was compelled to ex- 

 amine in detail the osteology of the class, and 

 as a result he refused to recognize families 

 among" the ( )scines. Huxley studied the osteology 

 of birds with special reference to their classifi- 

 cation and he also failed to distinguish fami- 

 lies in the same g^roup. ITu-bringer, in his mon- 

 umental work on the anatomy of the class, again 

 combined all the Oscines in one family, for which 

 he used the name Fasscrida'. Even in a faunal 

 work, the same idea was accepted; Seebohm, in 

 "A History of British Birds," named the group 

 in question "Family /^asscridir, or Sing-ing- 

 Birds." Still more, he even carried into execu- 

 tion the suggestion that the so-called families 

 should be deg-raded to the rank of subfamilies 

 by actually doing so and designating the sub- 

 families "Turdina? or Thrushes," "Sylviina? or 

 Warblers," "Parina; or Tits," "Corvina; or 

 Crows," "Laniin;e or Shrikes," "Ampelina? or 

 Waxings," "Sturnin;e or Starlings." "Fringil- 

 lin;e or Finches." "Hirundininai' or Swallows," 

 "Motacillina' or Wagtails." and "Alaudina? or 

 I.,arks. " It will be evident, therefore, that we 

 have excellent precedents for the procedure 

 recommended, and the reform already partly 

 effected. 



We may now turn from the high or super- 

 generic groups to the low or subspecific. 



SUBSPECIES. 



There is a serious taxonomic problem that 

 will confront us in the treatment of North 

 American birds. Our ornitholog-ists very gen- 

 erally have manifested a disposition to study 

 the variations of species and to discriminate the 

 variants as subspecies. There is a tendency in 

 the same direction in other branches of zoology 

 and by some it has been called the statistical 

 method. It has been very recently employed in 

 ichthyology. For example. Mr. Walter Gars- 

 tang, of Plymouth, appears to have shown that 

 there is an averag^e of minor characteristics 

 which differentiate the mackerels of different 

 rang-es as distinct races, but he has not deemed 

 it necessary to name such races. Such studies 

 are valuable and should not be decried. Never- 

 theless an instability is introduced in any group 



in whicli undue jironiinence is g'iven to such 

 variations which is embarrassing. I do not see 

 any end to such splitting, but an interminable 

 numl)er of subspecies looms threatening' in the 

 future. I would suggest that in the new orni- 

 thology a very subordinate rank should be giv- 

 en to the subspecies. The species might be de- 

 scribed in generalized terms, that is. iTicluding- 

 all the variants, and the diversification into sub- 

 species indicated in terse phraseolog'y imme- 

 diately after the diagnosis of the comUKtn char- 

 acters. 



This recommendiition. I foresee, will not be 

 acceptable to some, who would prefer to see 

 subsjiecies ti'eated in the same way as spec'cs. 

 There are indication.s even that sooner or 1 ' er 

 some one will break from the ranks of tr'' o- 

 mialists and return to the binomialists, giv .ig' 

 regular specific names to what are now called 

 subspecies. It has been held by most of our 

 naturalists that the difference between spe":ies 

 and subspecies is that the former do not inter- 

 grade and the latter do intergrade with others. 

 There have been mutterings of dissatisfaction 

 however with this view recently, and there i?. no 

 telling' when present re.straints will confine no 

 longer. 



nxTR Ai.iMiiwr, sPKc:i-:s. 



I woidd also deviate from a custom that has 

 been long- fashionable in this country as v,-ell as 

 in England, that is, the incorporation of acci- 

 dental species with the legitimate fauna. The 

 greed for foreign possessions that has been dom- 

 inant in England for centuries, and that has 

 now most unhappily extended to this country, 

 has been manifest in the treatment of our 

 fauna as well as in politics. Every poor wan- 

 derer, driven Ijy adverse winds or some other 

 calamity, is reg-istered, as soon as identified, as a 

 representative of the fauna. In Eng-land, where 

 numerous collectors have been searching for 

 rarities for many years, and which is favorably 

 situated to receive and detain for a time .such 

 wanderers, a considerable percentage of the 

 listed avifauna is constituted of such waifs and 

 estrays; in America, the percentage is increas- 

 ing, but to a less degree. Such a procedure 

 gives a wrong- idea of the native fauna and of 

 geographical distribution, and should be modi- 

 fied. Of course, the fact that a foreigner has 

 wandered to the country should be recorded, but 

 not in the same category as the natives. "One 

 Swallow does not make a summer." 



SYNONYMY. 



The question of synonymy or bibliog'-raphical 

 references may be considered next. 



I fail to appreciate the usefulness of the repe- 

 tition in every work of complete synonymies. 

 Some time a brake will have to be applied and 

 it mig-ht be done now. I would be disposed to 

 restrict the references to the first describer of 

 the .species, the authority for the whole name 

 adopted. Wilson. Audubon. Baird (1858). Coues 

 (Key). Baird. Brewer nd Ridg-way. and the au- 

 thorities for statements made respecting biog-- 

 raphical details. Such references woiUd be full 

 eimugh for ordinary purposes. The investiga- 

 tor who wishes to trace historical facts in 

 greater detail mu.st know where to go to find 

 the requisite information. Even the list here 



