ae 
Vol. ae ‘| Correspondence. Ryall 
fically naming birds! by geographic probability is most timely. How 
can any one name the exact race on a sight record or, if specimens are taken, 
when they have not been compared with an authentic series and how useful 
are determinations when so made? They add nothing to our knowledge. 
If they agree with current conceptions they only reiterate previous state- 
ments without substantiating them; if they disagree they are futile unless 
supported by evidence. Further, if a writer knows the ‘geographical 
probabilities, can he not assume that the same evidence is accessible to a 
reader? At best, the practice (the common one) is useless and too often 
fixes misconceptions instead of correcting them. 
Then, what is the necessity of subspecifically naming everything seen, 
heard or written about regardless of the context? Is not the specific name 
close enough in the majority of cases? In ordinary practice we do not 
deem it always necessary to speak of a horse or dog by the name of its 
technical strain or race. We do not often find it necessary to speak of 
Clydesdale Horses, Guernsey Cattle or Blue Belton Setters, when we refer 
to horses, cows or dogs. When engaged in highly critical work or in special 
lines of investigation, where exact relationship is more or less the essence 
of the subject, we can use the most exact technical terminology, but how 
often is such refinement necessary, and if necessary is it safe to trust to mere 
unverified probability? 
In cases cited by “J. D.’’, Evening Grosbeak, Coccothraustes vesper- 
tina or Hudsonian Chickadee, Penthestes hudsonicus are just as satisfactory 
as Eastern Evening Grosbeak or Acadian Chickadee. They tell just as 
much as the others, for one ornithologist should be as capable of determin- 
ing the probabilities of geographic distribution as another. If a writer 
knows certainly the individual identity, or wishes to call attention to the 
subspecific distinction as such, he can be as definite as his knowledge per- 
mits or the case demands, but it smacks of pedantry to be needlessly pre- 
cise and is often misleading. 
Nowadays when ornithologists are splitting so finely and keen authorities 
disagree so widely not only upon what forms to recognize but also upon 
the applications of individual identity, the personal authority of a determi- 
nation is quite as necessary as the identity itself. The fact is that the sub- 
species is a highly technical subdivision and of very little interest or use 
to the non-technical student who can usually avoid it with safety to him- 
self and benefit to science. Many of the abuses of modern feather-splitting 
would be obviated if less importance was placed upon the subspecies. 
However true these forms may be as matters of fact they are the smallest 
and least important of zodlogical divisions. We have studied these slight 
differences so closely and with such concentration that in many minds 
these minor racial differences have eclipsed the major specific likenesses. 
If we altogether ignored subspecies except where their use was found neces- 
1 Review of Ornithological Magazines,— ‘ The Auk’, by J. D.  Bird-lore, Mar.,—Apr., 
Vol. XIX, 1917, p. 97. 
