28 Bulletin No. 2j. 



EDITORIAL. 



Certainly the most notable of the many good things in the February, 

 1899, Osp7-ey, is the "Letter Box," which contains Dr. Gill's "Suggest- 

 ions for a New History of North American Birds." • While there may be 

 many differences of opinion as regards the details suggested, the general 

 plan of making it the greatest work in the world upon birds will meet 

 the approval of every student of Ornithology. A great deal has been 

 published about the most of our North American birds, but this matter 

 has never been brought together in an available compilation. A great 

 deal more is known about these birds than has ever been published, 

 much of it, no doubt, put aside in old note-books and note-books not so 

 old. Dr. Gill's suggestions contemplate as complete a compilation of all 

 that is now known about all of our birds as possible, and where there is 

 any manifest lack of completeness, to take active measures to supply 

 that lack. Completeness, humanly speaking, is to be the watchword. 



It is not proposed to prepare and issue this great work tomorrow, nor 

 next week, nor next year, but to begin with the known, working out the 

 unknown as rapidly as may be. It is this conception of the vastness of 

 the enterprise, the recognition of how little we really know, and how 

 much needs to be done to round out our knowledge, that appeals to us so 

 strongly. The inauguration of so great a work would set in motion the 

 forces which would begin the needed revision of our present arrange- 

 ment and nomenclature, which would bring about an agreement as to the 

 value of characters necessary to establish the groups from class to sub- 

 species and thus effectually check the present marked tendency toward 

 Quadrinomialism or, in other words, toward the undue and illogical 

 elevation of minor characters. 



The plan to begin the issue of this "History" as supplemental to the 

 Osprey, either unpaged or else arbitrarily paged, and not in consecutive 

 order, certainly has its advantages, as Dr. Gill has pointed out. But 

 there seem to us grave disadvantages as well. We heartily second the 

 nomination of Dr. Coues as the Editor-in-chief, with a corps of able 

 helpers who could relieve him of a large share of the less important work, 

 and a younger associate who would be fully capable of bringing it to 

 completion in the event of a longer continuance of the enterprise than 

 anticipated, and the failing strength of the chief editor. 



We hope that the work may be begun without further delay. 



