^A Correspondence. [1^^ Tui ■ 



in the Zoological Record would be faced with problems, and their 

 work might contain errors which would entail endless research 

 to rectify. In consequence of writers not strictly observing the 

 laws, slight errors of this description have crept in. even as late 

 as the last volume. 



I have been taken to task for using trinomials. When Dr. 

 Hartert introduced trinomials into a paper on Australian birds, 

 the comment in The Emu (vol. v., p. 167, 1906), reads : — " It 

 would therefore appear that, in spite of all the ' immigration 

 restriction,' trinomial nomenclature has got into Australia after 

 all." Yet, on p. 140, A. G. Campbell had written regarding the 

 birds of Kangaroo Island : — " Concerning the nomenclature for 

 these intermediate or island forms, it is difficult to prescribe. 

 I would suggest the specific name halmaturina .... and 

 should subsequent research and more material warrant it, that 

 the same name be also sub-specifically applied to . . . ." 

 Then on page 143 he writes, " Zoster ops Jialmaiiirina (new sub- 

 species.)," though this is the bird (others also named similarly) 

 which he concluded should be considered specifically distinct. 



Such inconsistent naming is quite obviated by the use and 

 recognition of the trinomial system of nomenclature. 



Australian ornithologists are agreed that there are such things 

 as island forms and representative races, which are now generally 

 called sub-species. As stated by one of the " old school " of 

 British ornithologists, " no careful student of animals can deny 

 that sub-species really do exist in nature, but the question is 

 whether it is advisable to give them a special name." The 

 necessity of some method of terminology for distinguishing sub- 

 species is now accepted by Australian workers, but they have 

 consistently used binomials. 



A. J. North, in " Austr. Mus. Special Catalogue," No. i, vol. i., 

 pp. 288, 289 (1904), transcribes a paper by Dr. Dwight, jun., 

 from The Auk, vol. xxi., p. 64 (1904), of which I attach sentences : 

 — " Another, but less potent, cause for the rise of the sub-species 

 is found in the unnecessary prominence accorded to it in our books 

 and other publications. Wherever we turn, i&e find it, to all appear- 

 ances, on equal terms with ftill species. . . ." North then 

 adds : — " Trinomial nomenclature has not yet been adopted by 

 Australian ornithologists, although that does not protect Aus- 

 tralian ornithological literature from the hair-splitting of the 

 most ardent sub-species maker resident elsewhere. Comparatively 

 very few British and Continental ornithologists make use of the 

 sub-specific 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 sub- 

 specific recognition." 



