I20 Recent Literature. [January 



Phyllopseiistes borealis kenufcoiti, the two cases of Bndytesjiava and P. 

 borealh being, in our author's opinion, "absolutely parallel." In con- 

 sidering these species Dr. Stejneger einphaticallj reiterates his creed, and 

 sajs, under the head of Biidytes (p. 1S3), "We have here before us a 

 plain case demonstrating the necessity of recognizing [in nomenclature] 

 the finest differences between related forms if the aim of collecting speci- 

 mens and studying them is to find out tiie laws ruling the living nature. 

 If the ornithological system and the ornithological science has for object 

 only the convenience of the museum director in determining the names to 

 be put on the label, tlien it may be proper and convenient to ignore the 

 finer characters, and throw difterent forms into tlie same pot, because it is 

 difficult to trace a sharp line between them, or because there are individ- 

 uals wliich the perplexed director does not know iiow to enter upon the 

 register. But it is time tiiat such an ornithology should be done away 

 witli. The birds are not there for the sake of the museums, but the muse- 

 ums for the birds." When it becomes unsafe "to refer a specimen to 

 one oi- the other form without having a series of both forms at hand, or 

 without knowing the locality," there may be still "enough difference to 

 warrant their subspecific separation" ; but the utility of so doing seems 

 open to question. We recognize, as strongly as any one, the importance 

 of tracing out and noting these finer differences, but when the distinctions 

 are so fine, though readily appreciable when the proper amount and kind 

 of niatei'ial is before one, that descriptions however minute and detailed 

 tail to aft'ord the means of recognizing such forms, and actual comparison 

 of a specimen with a series representing the forms that may he in ques- 

 tion, and a knowledge of the e;cact locality is also requisite to render the 

 determination satisfactory, we submit that a degree of hair-splitting is 

 reached which renders the recognition of such forms in systematic nomen- 

 clature a matter of highly doubtful propriety. The recognition of such 

 forms becomes dependent not merely upon expert knowledge and tact in 

 discrimination, but upon the possession of matei'ial few museums are able 

 to acquire, and, generallv speaking, quite bejiond the resources of the 

 private cabinet, and the efficiency of the most detailed technical desci'ip- 

 tions. While such discriminations are of the highest importance in any 

 consideration of the relations of animals to their environment, and tlie 

 action of environment upon the evolution or modification of the forms of' 

 life, and should be most minutely noted, the recognition of such distinc- 

 tions in nomenclature may readily be carried bevond the point of practical 

 utility, since only the exceptionally favored few liaving access to the nec- 

 essary material will be able to recognize such finely drawn lines, which 

 serve only to mystify and embarrass the average student. 



Part II of Dr. Stejneger's work (pp. 313-325) gives a list of 1S6 species 

 of birds which are considered as authentically reported to inhabit Kamts- 

 chatka, while a number of others are referred to as having been attributed 

 to Kamtschatka, but whose occurrence there requires confirmation. An 

 Appendix to Part II (pp. 329-331) is mainly a critical commentary on re- 

 cent papers on this subject by Dybowski and Taczanowski. 



