^ 



^fgjf"'] Correspondence. cc 



Here is the opinion of a worker who, though not using tri- 

 nomials, can perceive the benefits accruing from their usage. 

 The benefit North points out, however, is only one of many. 

 Nomenclature is only an aid to scientific knowledge, and its correct 

 use is such that by means of it relationships can be easily ex- 

 pressed. Tlie use of binomials for sub-species is misleading, as 

 thereby the relationships are completely hidden, whilst tri- 

 nomials, as North notes, show at a glance the value and status 

 of a form. Since North wrote, British and Continental orni- 

 thologists have almost unanimously a])proved of the trinomial 

 system, the only exce])tions being the last remnant ol tlie Strick- 

 landian school. 



By means of trinomials we can show the connections of the 

 Australian avifauna in an easily understood manner, which other- 

 wise is not practical)]e. In this connection I will quote Von 

 ^hcring (Auk. xxi. (1(^04), p. 313), who thus expresses my 

 'views : — 



" These facts of geographical distribution show us that the only 

 system of nomenclature well applicable to the discussion of 

 zoographical problems is the trinomial. 



" The use of binomials as employed in the excellent ' Hand-list ' 

 of Dr. Bowdler Sharpe may be more advantageous for collection 

 purposes, but it combines in a very inconvenient manner well- 

 defined species with local races. Such facts as the vast dis- 

 tribution of Pitangiis sulphiiyatiis (L.) and Myriozetetes similis 

 (Spix.) are completely hidden by the use of binomial nomen- 

 clature." 



I have hitherto accepted that the Australian ornithologist 

 thoroughly understands how the trinomial is used, and what is 

 considered a sub-species. It may not, however, be out of place 

 to emphasize the point that a sub-species is considered as a 

 representative race— that is, two birds living together in the 

 same districts cannot be considered sub-species, however slight 

 the differential features might be ; these must be permanent to 

 make the two birds specifically distinct, otherwise the differences 

 must be put down to individual variation. If two birds, refer- 

 able to the same species, but inhabiting different areas, be found 

 to show constant slight separable characters, these are ranked 

 as sub-species, even though certain individuals in each area may 

 be inseparable. 



A good instance in Australian ornithology may be quoted as 

 an example. In my " Hand-list " I read : — 

 Oreocichla cuneata, De Vis. 

 ,, heinei, Cabanis. 



„ lunulata, Latham; 



,, macrorhyncha, Gould. 



I have here four binomials which may represent four species, 

 or four sub-species, or four species and sub-species — no one can 

 tell which without examination of the four birds. 



By the terminology I propose adopting we should have instead— 



