Vol. XXXVIIl 



1920 



Swarth, Races of Branta canadensis. ^69 



ional 'inextricable' examples be recognized as hybrids." Presum- 

 ably Branta canadensis is also to be considered as a species, though 

 he does not say so. At any rate it will be necessary to do so, to 

 supply a second parent for his hybrids. 



Now to come to details. " On page three of 'A Study of a Col- 

 lection of Geese . . .' Swarth states, in a discussion of thirty- 

 six specimens considered as hutchinsi, 'twenty-five are males.' 

 Without an explanation of his reasons, he employs but ten of that 

 sex as representative of the differences he describes on page four- 

 teen. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that the dif- 

 ferences he finds in the minimum and maximum measurements of 

 wing, culmen and tarsus, as compared with the findings of other 

 writers, may be due to the elimination of the remaining fifteen 

 males belonging to the series." In plain language, I am accused 

 of juggling the measurements taken to make them accord with 

 my own preconceived ideas. 



Mr. Figgins' premise is a false one. The diagnoses of the sub- 

 species given on pages 14-15 are based on all the specimens ex- 

 amined. The summaries of measurements (pp. 14-15) are from 

 a limited number (ten in the case of hutchinsi), but on pages 16-18 

 he will find the important measurements of all the specimens, all, 

 that is, except a very few that were defective so as not to permit of 

 accurate measurement of one part or another. Futhermore, the 

 extremes as given in the summaries on pages 14-15 are the ex- 

 tremes of all the measurements taken, not from a limited selection. 

 An ordinarily careful reading of my paper would have shown this. 



Then, in connection with the subspecies occidentalis: " Swarth's 

 contention for a difference in size when compared with canaden- 

 sis is not convincing" (Figgins, 1. c, p. 98). My "contention" 

 was that " the maximum of occidentalis is below the largest cana- 

 densis" (Swarth, 1. c, p. 7). I did not assert that the size differ- 

 ence between the two was diagnostic. Mr. Figgins has not shown 

 my statement to be erroneous. Then: "The present writer in- 

 terprets Swarth's description of occidentalis as an attempt to justify 

 the continuance of this variation as a subspecies by crediting it as 

 being a more or less resident form inhabiting the Pacific Coast 



. . ," etc. (Figgins, 1. c, p. 98). I think I do not need 

 Mr. Figgins to "interpret" my statements, and I resent an "inter- 



