372 Correspondence. pk 
sary, and then only after verification, a great number of imaginary, useless 
or very slight distinctions would automatically sink into practical obscurity 
while those whose value was proved by their continued use would be con- 
firmed. 
It is unfortunate that the A. O. U. Committee has not seen fit to give 
us in the Check-List vernacular specific names. Each subspecies, no matter 
how slightly defined, has been given a distinctive popular name, but at 
present we have no means of speaking vernacularly of the more much im- 
portant group, the species. Instead, in many cases, the proper specific 
name has been applied to one of the subordinate races, usually the type 
form, thus restricting to one race the term and popular concept that pro- 
perly belongs to the whole species. A Shetland pony is as much a Horse as 
is a Clydesdale, and a dog is a Dog whether setter or hound. So an evening 
grosbeak is still an Evening Grosbeak whether it belongs to the western or 
the eastern group, and a robin is an American Robin whether it is P. m, 
migratorius or P.m. propinquus. The current practice of the A. O. U. has 
fostered the feeling that when a subspecies is defined the type form remains 
the species while the new form is subordinate to it. In fact our concepts, or 
at least the popular expression of them, have not kept pace with the growth 
of the trinomial system. The species does remain intact in spite of the 
fact that we discern minor groupings within it and so should be presented 
in our nomenclature. All this has been provided for in the authorized 
latin nomenclature for the scientific student who should already be pos- 
sessed of correct principles, but the general public which draws most of its 
inspiration and forms a large part of its fundamental concepts from the 
popular system of English names is given a misleading guide. The ver- 
nacular system was designed primarily for the use of the general non-scienti- 
fic public and not for the scientist who has only adopted it informally as a 
matter of colloquial convenience. Why not adapt it to its original purpose 
and as the work of scientific minds make it inculcate scientific truths rather 
than misstatements. 
Considering all things, the unwisdom of encouraging careless subspecific 
designation, the general public’s lack of legitimate interest in a purely 
technical subject, and the convenience of all concerned, why not cut the 
Gordian knot cleanly and while restoring the logical names to the species 
discard subspecific vernacular names altogether? The very fact of having 
no convenient vernacular handle for merely technical distinctions would 
automatically instil caution in the inexpert by eliminating the familiarity 
that breeds contempt, without hampering the specialist. The sooner the 
species is given a popular name, the facts of subspecific relationship pre- 
sented to the public with scientific accuracy and perspective and the indis- 
criminate use of the subspecies by the inexpert discouraged, the sooner 
will some of the difficulties of the present practice disappear. 
P. A. TAVERNER. 
Ottawa. 
