pie PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 301 
that if every slight variation of color necessitates the creation of subspe- 
cies, then there would be no limit to such in both Gecinus viridis and 
G. canus.” Ifthe subspecies really exist, we should recognize them, and 
it would facilitate our researches if we name them, but whether the 
number of them be great or small is only a secondary matter. Many 
ornithologists would willingly recognize two or even three subspecies 
by names, but they would be scared were it found that a species had 
split up into a dozen subspecies, or more. Their ruling principle is 
like that of Mx. Seebohin, who regards a genus as “highly objectionable” 
because only containing one or two species, though the result is quite 
different. Myr. Hargitt, moreover, seems to require that itshall always 
be possible to “‘ draw a line” between the forms which he honors with 
a name (see loc. cit., p. 14), but from the nomenclature which | adopted in 
describing the present subspecies under the heading of a trinominal 
he might have known that I did not claim that any “line” can be 
drawn. It is the essential difference between binominals and trinomi- 
nals that a line can be drawn between the forms designated by binomi- 
nals, but not between those for which it has been found necessary to 
apply three names. 
Nor do I think that a very gray female collected at Sapporo in May 
proves anything either in regard to the status of P. canus jessoensis or 
to that of P. canus perpallidus. Perhaps it may belong to the latter; 
it would not be surprising; but perhaps it is only a faded and abraded 
specimen of the typical Yezo bird. However, even if none of these 
suppositions should hold, it is now well understood by American. tri- 
nominalists, at least, that isolated cases of this kind do not affect the 
general status of the subspecies. In fact, in order to justify the use 
of a trinominal such cases are required. 
Dryocopus martius Lin. (171) 
A fine pair of this woodpecker is in Henson’s collection, the first Jap- 
anese specimens I have seen. They are of a very intense black, and 
the bill is somewhat larger than in a European specimen before ine. 
U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 120551 ¢ ad., Henson, No. 216; Hakodate, December 2, 1884. U. 
S. Nat. Mus. No. 120552 9 ad., Henson, No. 254; ibid., December, 15, 1884. 
Otocoris alpestris (LIN.). (267) 
U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 120550 ¢ ad., Henson, No. 1972; southeastern shore of Volcano 
Bay, Yezo, February 12, 1887. 
The Common Horned Lark, or Shore Lark, has only been admitted 
into the Japanese avifauna with a query on the strength of a Japanese 
drawing so identified by the authors of Fauna Japonica (Aves, p. 138). 
Mr. Henson, therefore, has made a real addition to the fauna, since his 
specimen is the first, and as yet the only example, of this species from 
Japan, which has come into the hands of ornithologists. It belongs to 
the normal form, which is quite alike in both hemispheres. 
