508 Notes and News. [o"t. 



of arbitration. Such a list is our A. O. U. ' Check- List ' prepared by the 

 A. O. U. Committee on Classification and Nomenclature, and the great 

 majority of our readers who are not interested in the technicalities of 

 nomenclature turn to this check-fist when they wish to make use of scien- 

 tific names. 



This work can of necessity never be up to date and for the convenience 

 of those who wish to keep up with the technicalities a series of annual lists 

 of proposed changes and additions to the ' Check-List ' appears in the April 

 issue of 'The Auk,' compiled by Dr. Harry C. Oberholser and embodying 

 the compiler's opinions upon certain of the cases. These fists however, 

 carry no further authority and no action has as yet been taken by the 

 A. O. U. Committee on any of the cases contained therein. 



It seems desirable that this fact be strongly emphasized since the 'Lists' 

 have been confused by some with the 'Supplements to the Check-List' 

 issued under the authority of the Committee. A case in point is Mrs. 

 Florence Merriam Bailey's excellent 'List of the Birds of Glacier National 

 Park' which is stated to follow the ' 1910 A. O. U. Check-List revised to the 

 April 1918 Auk.' As the list of proposed changes in the April 1918 'Auk' 

 and its predecessors contain no decisions by the A. O. U. Committee it is 

 obvious that any "revision" of the 'Check-List' based upon them is purely 

 the selection or rejection of such names there included as the author may 

 choose. 



While in technical papers representing original research in nomenclature 

 it is perfectly proper for an author to propose or endorse names differing 

 from those used in the 'Check-List,' it seems most undesirable to do so in 

 local North American fists or in popular articles or such as are written for 

 public instruction, as Mrs. Bailey's list above quoted or Dr. Oberholser's 

 census of birds in the vicinity of Washington, D. C. (see antea p. 492). 

 In the latter only technical names are used and as the average reader of the 

 census will be unable to locate a number of them in the A. O. U. ' Check- 

 List,' the only check-list available to him (or in any other, for that matter) 

 he will be unable to understand what birds Dr. Oberholser is writing about. 

 We do not question the accuracy of Dr. Oberholser's nomenclature — there 

 are few better authorities on the subject — nor the probability that the 

 A. O. U. Committee will ultimately endorse most of his decisions, but until 

 they do so it seems that the use of these "advanced" names in such publi- 

 cations retards instead of advances ornithology. We must consider our 

 readers and write in the language that they can understand. 



That it is not necessary to be "up to the minuit" in matters of nomen- 

 clature in order to do excellent ornithological work may be seen in the 

 publications of the members of the Cooper Ornithological Club. Our 

 Californian co-workers it is true recognize certain races not accepted in the 

 A. O. U. 'Check-List' but in matters of pure nomenclature, generic divi- 

 sion, etc., they are content to follow the 'Check-List.' 1 'The Auk' has not 



1 Names of new races not yet included in the ' Check-L st ' may of course be employed 

 if desired with footnotes showing their equivalents in the ' Check-List ' nomenclature. 



