504 Correspondence. [July 



Lewis must have, we think, much more faith in the power of the 'Check- 

 List' than have its compilers if he thinks that it could influence general 

 usage in such matters. 



What we have said is applicable to all names, not only those denoting 

 birds or other natural objects. We cannot enforce upon the public what 

 the public will not have, as witness the failure of the advocates of "motion 

 picture" as against "moving-picture," and we may see the day when 

 "movie" will be the recognized word in our dictionaries. 



Propositions such as Mr. Lewis advocates while all very well in theory 

 would produce a set of English names but not a set of popular names, and 

 the ornithologist who would be expected to use them surely has troubles 

 enough as it is in the matter of names without adding to his burdens. 



In these remarks it will be seen that I am in the main endorsing the 

 attitude of Mr. Rowan and it would probably be well to follow his sug- 

 gestion of giving several popular names in the 'Check-List' where there 

 are several in general use, though the Committee would probably be criti- 

 cised for errors of omission and favoritism if they made such a selection. 



As to the addition of the word American to distinguish certain of our 

 birds from English species bearing the same popular name, I cannot agree 

 with Mr. Rowan. This practise was followed in the earlier editions of 

 the 'Check-List' but was deliberately abolished in 1910 even in the case 

 of the Robin. The reason for this action was that the Committee recog- 

 nized in these names just such book-names as 1 have referred to above. 

 Nobody thinks for a moment of calling our bird anything but Robin and 

 we shall continue to call it so, all the check-lists and ornithologies to the 

 contrary. It would seem quite as unnecessary to insist upon printing 

 the name of our bird "American Robin" as it would to try to compel 

 our British friends to call their bird "English Robin" whenever they refer 

 to it. Americans will, it is true, use this name when they refer to the 

 English bird just as the English will call our bird "American Robin" but to 

 each in his own country the respective birds are simply Robins, and they 

 will continue to be called so just as various identical household implements 

 are given entirely differen names by the English speaking people on the 

 two sides of the Atlantic. The Sparrow Hawk case cited by Mr. Rowan is 

 simply an illustration of editorial ignorance and distinctive terms should 

 of course be used in print wherever ambiguity exists. 



There is it seems to us more justice in the claim of some of our western 

 ornithologists that the "Eastern" Robin should be so designated in con- 

 trast with the "Western Robin" on the grounds that one is no more "the" 

 Robin than the other. If we are to have any book-names let them be 

 of this kind with the understanding, however, that in popular usage the 

 geographical prefix in each case is to be dropped. 



Mr. Lewis's fifth proposition is well taken. Where we have two kinds 

 of any group of birds inhabiting the same region the unadorned name 

 rarely serves as a term for either one of them. "Chickadee" as he says 



