V °i8g6 in l Recent Literature. 327 



Thus apparently Mr. Sclater concedes practically nothing in the interest 

 of " reconciling the differences between the German Rules and the Code of 

 Nomenclature adopted by the British Association" ; he strenuously upholds 

 the British Code on the three essential points wherein it differs from 

 the German Code, regardless of the fact that within the last ten years the 

 whole world of zoologists, outside of the British Islands, has gone over to 

 the opposite view, and that a number of prominent British zoologists have 

 also recently joined the great and ever increasing majority against the 

 British Code. We must say, with regret, that this looks like unwise 

 conservatism, bordering on perversity; for the few British naturalists 

 who still stick to the British rules can hardly expect the rest of the world 

 to waive their better judgment in favor of insular sentiment and traditions. 



Mr. Sclater has much to say in favor of the German Code where it is in 

 agreement with the British rules, and has even been willing to make con- 

 cessions on one or two minor points. One of these is that " the name of 

 the author, if given, should follow the scientific name without intervening 

 sign," as is expressly provided in the A. O. U. Code and approved by the 

 German zoologists. It is with regret, therefore, that we have observed in 

 certain publications in this country a tendency to insert a comma between 

 the scientific name and the authority, and especially in the publications 

 of our own National Museum, where, up to a few years ago, the contrary 

 practice prevailed. 



We are glad also to see that Mr. Sclater here comes out squarely in 

 favor of the use of trinomials for subspecies,— which, it is true, he has 

 used quite freely for some years past. On this point he says : "That sub- 

 species actually exist in nature cannot, I think, be denied by anybody who 

 believes in the origin of species by descent. Nearly all forms of animal 

 life, which have a wide distribution, show differences when individuals 

 from the two extremes of the range of the species are compared. . . . 

 ' Subspecies ' appears to me to be an excellent term to designate the slight 

 differences exhibited in these cases, far better than 'climatic' or 'geo- 

 graphical' variety, which is often used for them. . . . The British forms 

 of the Coal Tit and the Marsh Tit, which have been named Pants britan- 

 nicus and Pants dresser/, appear to me to be good instances of subspecies. 

 I should propose to call them Paries ater britannicus and Pants palustris 

 dresseri, while the corresponding forms of the continent should be termed 

 Pants ater typictts and Parus palustris typicus when they are spoken of in 

 the restricted sense only. In ordinary cases, however, it is sufficient to 

 say Parus ater and Pants palustris without any reference to the subspecies. 

 To give these slight and in some cases barely recognizable variations the 

 same rank as is awarded to Turdus mitsicus and Turdtts viscivorus seems to 

 me highly undesirable, and the recognition of subspecies indicated by 

 trinomials gives us an easy way out of the difficulty." While of course 

 all this has been said before, it is gratifying, as we recall the past in 

 relation to trinomials, to see it restated in the present connection. 



As 'Appendix I' to his address, Mr. Sclater gives an English transla- 



