500 Correspondence. [july 



mind and will have to remain in use. No efforts of the scientist can 

 eradicate it. Yet there is a solution to the problem and a very simple 

 one — by the use of the prefix "American." There is no doubt that 

 Accipiter nisus was known by the name of Sparrow Hawk before Falco 

 sparverius received it and therefore by the rules of priority and common 

 sense the latter should be modified to "American Sparrow Hawk." It 

 is the only way of saving such an absurd situation as has arisen in the last 

 number of 'Country Life. ' It is all very well to argue as Mr. Seton does 

 "that the genius of language does not know of the existence of South 

 America or concern itself with priority or with anything but getting the 

 idea into the mind and memory." Such an argument is too restricted 

 to be of value. The genius of language may devise the name of Sparrow 

 Hawk, but surely it will not be too difficult for him to learn and remember 

 that another genius of language in another country (even if he has to be 

 informed of its existence) discovered this name a century or two earlier 

 and applied to to a different bird and therefore the word American will 

 have to be prefixed to his Sparrow Hawk to distinguish it from the origi- 

 nal. Earlier in his letter Mr. Seton mentions the Robin and states with- 

 out comment that "actually even the scientific lists give the bird as 

 American Robin." (The italics are mine). Here he takes an example 

 in which the rules of priority have been tacitly acknowledged by the use 

 of the prefix "American" and acclaims the result, but he then proceeds 

 to deprecate this only possible way of arriving at a satisfactory popular 

 nomenclature. The principles of priority may primarily concern the 

 scientific student but they cannot be ignored by the field worker. They 

 are fundamental. There is no doubt that the names now firmly fixed in 

 the popular mind will have to stand, but there is no reason why in the 

 case of the many birds that have names in use in other countries, if these 

 latter have priority, the American species should not be differentiated by 

 the use of the prefix "American." It has been done in the case of the 

 Robin. It should likewise be done in all other cases. 



I feel that I am unduly trespassing on your space, but there is one other 

 point to which I should like to call attention. Mr. Seton gives a number 

 of very interesting examples of birds that have several popular names all 

 well established in the districts in which they are respectively used. If 

 standard books would give a list of these recognized names instead of 

 attempting to eradicate them in favor of a single one and give to the one 

 in most general use the most prominent place, the book would be of uni- 

 versal value. In a country the size of North America it is only reasonable 

 to expect that a bird should have more than one popular name. Even 

 in England, small as it is, many of the people in the north do not know 

 what is meant if a southern name be applied to some of their commonest 

 birds. As Mr. Seton points out, Doctor Elliot Coues hit upon this plan. 

 It has been followed by one or two other authors, e. g., Mr. Bailey in his 

 'Birds of Virginia' and Mr. Taverner in his 'Birds of Eastern Canada.' 



