Vol.XVIII-l General Notes. IQ7 



igoi J -^ I 



but having no gun I was unable to obtain a specimen for close inspection. 

 On the 15th of January while calling on a taxidermist friend, I saw what 

 was without a doubt a Loggerhead Shrike, that had been taken near here, 

 yet he did not know it to be anything uncommon, as he is very poorly 

 informed in ornithology. This is probably a new addition to the birds of 

 New Brunswick, and for which a keen lookout will be kept in future — 

 Wm. H. Moore, Scotch Lake, York Co., N. B. 



The Scientific Name of the Southern Yellow-throat. — Mr. Chapman's 

 disagreement (Auk, Oct., 1900, p. 3S9) with my acceptance of Geothlypis 

 trichas roscoe (Aud.), brings up an interesting nomenclatural question 

 well worth discussing. I liave never seen trichas in a cypress tree, but I 

 have seen roscoe often. This is not of course evidence that Audubon 

 shot a roscoe but neither is Mr. Chapman's idea that the bird was a 

 trichas because it w^as high up in a cypress and the time September. It 

 should be remembered that Audubon knew little about subspecies and 

 nothing about their values, and therefore his action in reversing a former 

 view is not surprising. Also, previous to the publication of Dr. Has- 

 brouck's paper, and Mr. Brewster's name for the western bird, all were 

 considered as trichas. My conclusion on the subject was based on ideas 

 not thought necessary to discuss in a long paper but I will do so now 

 that the issue has been raised. 



Hasbrouck definitely and rightly separated the southern bird and 

 would have given a new name but for the existence of the name Sylvia 

 roscoe. It seemed reasonable from the evidence before him that Audu- 

 bon's bird under the circumstances was the southern form. Chapman 

 brought forward no additional evidence concerning the distribution of 

 these birds and has not disproved the early view of Audubon, or Has- 

 brouck's action. The known eastern distribution of these birds for 

 hundreds of miles beyond the limits set for it by Chapman, and the ex- 

 istence of Gulf specimens referable to the same form, renders Hasbrouck's 

 acceptance of Audubon's name logical and reasonable. It should be, 

 scientifically speaking, necessary that positive evidence should be acquired 

 before upsetting a name so well established as Hasbrouck's, yet Mr. 

 Chapman furnished none in his paper and none since. 



There is no taint on Hasbrouck's name ; it is not a homonyn, nor is there 

 a particle of evidence to prove or even tending to show, that it is a synonym 

 of G. trichas trichas. It is really necessary to dispose logically of the 

 older name by evidence, not opinion. I considei^ that there are three 

 things which should prevent acceptance of Mr. Chapman's name, and that 

 the burden of proof rests with Mr. Chapman, not with the other side. 

 It is necessary to prove that Sylvia roscoe is a synonym of G. trichas 

 trichas. It is necessary to prove that the southern bird does not exist in 

 the cypress swamps of Mississippi. It is necessary to show that another 

 form occurs in that State that in all probability is Audubon's bird. Until 



