Z7v Swarth, Races of Branta canadensis. [April 



pretation" that claims to show an unworthy motive. I stated, 

 in language that seems to me perfectly explicit (Swarth, 1. c, p. 

 10), my belief that occidentalis is a recognizable subspecies. I 

 have had no reason since to change my mind. 



Another quotation: "Swarth shows that 'hutchinsi' attains its 

 greatest abundance on the Pacific coast ..." (Figgins, 1. 

 c, p. 101). What I really said was that in California in winter we 

 find " vast numbers of typical minima, a lesser number of inter- 

 grades, and comparatively few typical hiitchinsi" (Swarth, 1. c, 

 p. 3). One feels rather helpless when he finds his opponent as- 

 cribing to him statements exactly the opposite of what he did say. 

 The only assumption permitted me is that Mr. Figgins read my 

 paper too carelessly to judge its contents. 



So much for the personal side of the matter, though there are 

 other statements, too, to which I might well take exception. Now, 

 for Mr. Figgins' conclusions, especially as regards the subspecies 

 occidentalis. 



In the first place, there is no evidence in his paper that he ex- 

 amined a single example of occidentalis. If he had any specimens 

 at hand from the coast of southeastern Alaska he does not say so. 

 If he did have, and if he could compare geese from that region with 

 Canada Geese from the interior of the United States and still not 

 appreciate the differences in color, there is nothing more to be 

 said on that score. Others can distinguish these differences with- 

 out difficulty. 



Then, Mr. Figgins confuses two entirely different problems, the 

 characters of the subspecies that inhabits the northwest coast, 

 and the name that should be applied to the race. His argument 

 that some of the characters first ascribed to the subspecies are un- 

 reliable is, of course, nothing new and of no importance now that 

 the more stable characters are better understood. The fact that 

 the type specimen of occidentalis is not representative of the mode 

 of that subspecies, as now defined, is obviously no reason why the 

 form should not be recognized. I consequently fail to understand 

 why my detailed description of this type specimen " would appear 

 to effectually dispose of occidentalis as a subspecific variety" 

 (Figgins, 1. c, p. 98). 



Mr. Figgins says: "The statement [by Swarth] that 'Of the 

 Alaskan series the Prince William Sound birds are smaller and 



