140 Letters, Extracts, and Notices. 



my colleagues and friends who may read your article, I 

 certainly would not have troubled you with this rectification, 

 for which, however, I feel sure you will not object to allow a 

 little space in the forthcoming number of 'The Ibis.' 



I am, Sirs, yours &c, 



Rotterdamsche Diergaarde, J. Buttikofer. 



Rotterdam, 



19th November, 1904. 



[We much regret to find that the paragraph in ques- 

 tion should be construed as involving any depreciation of 

 Dr. Buttikofer, whose excellent work in zoology is known 

 to all of us, and we can assure him that nothing could be 

 farther from our thoughts. — Edd.] 



Sirs, — The adoption or non-adoption of the trinomial 

 system is such an important resolve that I would crave space 

 to urge most earnestly that the subject should be studied 

 with the great attention that it deserves. Above all, let 

 existing prejudices be thrown to the winds, for to be conser- 

 vative on principle, without weighing arguments, is surely 

 unscientific. 



In 'The Ibis' for October 1904, Dr. E. Hartert brought 

 forward some strong arguments in favour of the trinomial 

 system ; but there is a point on which he did not touch, and 

 on which I should like to make a few remarks. 



I have often heard it argued that the trinomial system 

 necessitates finer divisions than the binomial. In reality, 

 however, " fine splitting " is an individuality and is practiced 

 by both trinomialists and binomialists ; but whereas the 

 " subspecies " of the trinomialists can be ignored in a general 

 survey of a genus, every fine division of the binomialist has 

 to be considered. 



I am sure that soon it will be generally recognised that 

 the binomialist is creating the greatest possible confusion 

 by describing what are nothing more than geographical races 



