Vol. xxxvin 



1920 



Correspondence. 505 



is not distinctive as compared with 'Carolina Chickadee" and where the 

 two occur we have to use the qualifying term "Black-capped" for the 

 former. This is done now in spite of the ' Check-List' and the sooner this 

 name is incorporated in the volume the better. So too "Crossbill" which 

 lost its qualifying name "American" at the same time that the Robin did, 

 is unsatisfactory and ambiguous and consequently in popular usage and 

 in not a few publications it appears, as it should, "Red Crossbill." 

 So too "Water-Thrush" should be officially as it is popularly called 

 "Northern Water-Thrush" and there are doubtless others. In some cases 

 however, there seems to have been no ambiguity as "Palm" and "Yellow- 

 Palm" Warbler but these may also be changed if it is thought better. 



Mr. Lewis's proposition concerning the consistent naming of a species and 

 its component sub-species has already been discussed in these columns. 

 While granting the need of some collective heading such as he suggests 

 we do not think what the use of a word in the singular for the collective 

 concept embracing all of the subspecies of a species will be anything but 

 ambiguous. The word "Song-Sparrow" and " Melospiza melodia" have 

 been used so long, and are still used, to denote the eastern race alone 

 that we cannot now use the same terms to denote the whole assemblage 

 of Song Sparrows. A better plan and one which we hope to see adopted 

 in the next edition of the 'Check-List' has been suggested: namely to use 

 the plural name "Song-Sparrows" for the complex Melospiza melodia. 



After all, as stated at the outset, popular nomenclature is radically diff- 

 erent from technical nomenclature and we must follow popular usage 

 rather than try to arbitrarily influence it, even though we be not consis- 

 tent. 



Witmer Stone.] 



Procellaria vittata Forster is not Halobaena caerulea Gmelin. 



Editor of 'The Auk': 



In the 'Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.,' Vol. 32, p. 201, Dec. 31, 1919, Mr. 

 H. C. Oberholser has claimed that Procellaria vittata was given by Forster 

 to the bird now known as Halobaena caerulea Gmelin, and as it was pub- 

 lished prior to the latter it should replace it. 



Apparently Mr. Oberholser's contention is based upon the information 

 provided by myself in the 'Birds of Australia,' and as his conclusion is 

 incorrect, I here re-state the facts as clearly as possible so that no future 

 misapprehension may arise. 



Forster accompanied Cook on his second voyage round the world as 

 naturalist and his son George was with him as painter. The elder For- 

 ster, whose initials are J. R., considered himself entitled to publish the 

 results of the voyage, but the Admiralty who had engaged him did not 

 agree with that view when his engagement concluded and definitely for- 



