446 Correspondence. [ j u l ] y 



CORRESPONDENCE 



Editor of 'The Auk': 



It is disappointing to find (Auk, April, 1919, pp. 317-318) that even so* 

 careful a reader and reasoner as yourself has failed to grasp my meaning, 

 and the principles that I have attempted to put in practice. If you have 

 failed in understanding me it can be expected that there is further mis- 

 information abroad regarding my aims and methods. Whether this is 

 my fault or that of others, a further statement seems necessary. 



You are quite correct when you state that I do not agree to the slightest 

 abandonment of the subspecific principle. Neither am I a binomialist in 

 the common sense of the term, as I hold that the trinomial is the only 

 logical form of name for subspecific races. That I differ with some as to 

 the exact degree of differentiation it is expedient to recognize in this manner 

 and think that in the past the subspecific fact has been given undue promi- 

 nence over the specific one, are matters of detail and do not interfere with 

 any generally accepted fundamental principles. 



When however you say, — "Mr. Taverner would use this binomial for 

 some one race (seen but not positively determined) of M. melodia" you are 

 attributing to me sentiments that I do not hold, and I have expressed myself 

 but poorly if you can base them on anything I have said or on examples I 

 have furnished. On the contrary I have consistently applied the binomial 

 collectively to all the races of a species, lumping them under the specific title 

 and using the trinomial for each of the constituent subspecies. In this I 

 have followed to the letter the principles of the A. O. U. as exemplified in 

 the Check List of 1910 and am in harmony with all who believe in repre- 

 senting the first described race by a trinomial name. The use of the 

 binomial specific heading is an old one, sanctioned by the occasional prac- 

 tice of writers of repute, notably yourself. I have therefore only used a 

 recognized form in a recognized manner, departing from current practice 

 only in its freer use. 



You suggest that where the exact subspecific status is doubtful, the 

 abbreviation subspf can be used as indicative of the fact. I grant it, but 

 submit that it is redundant. According to A. O. U. practice there is 

 absolutely no difference in meaning between the forms M. melodia and M. 

 melodia subsp? except, perhaps, that a little greater emphasis is placed 

 upon the question in the latter case. Of course to those who still cling to 

 the nearly obsolete practice of giving the type race the specific binomial, 

 as if the attendant subspecies were subordinate instead of coordinate 

 divisions, there is a great difference, but this reflects a concept that the 

 A. O. U. has already rejected. 



It may be asserted with some justice that the listing of such forms as 

 Magpie, Black Tern, Rough-leg and others as binomials savors of pedantry, 

 as the possibility of American specimens being other than American forms 



