122 Correspondence. LJan. 



man at the same time, and not easily brought together again, since many 

 museums and friends sent me whole collections and single specimens for 

 study, in addition to the wonderful material in the Tring-Museum, the 

 results of many years of labour and expense. I do not think that such 

 intricate questions can be criticized and declared to be "apparently unsat- 

 isfactory," unless the critic himself has devoted months of study to the 

 subject. 



Whether my work is inferior to that of my friend Hellmayr will soon be- 

 come apparent, because the latter author will before long publish a new 

 review of the Paridse of the world, and I am in the happy position to predict 

 that Mr. Hellmayr will adopt practically all my alterations. In fact I have 

 discussed many questions with him and we have finally agreed in all of 

 them. 



I have of course no objection to my kind critic's different views on certain 

 points — in fact science is often benefited by the ventilation of various 

 views — but I do object to the statement that there are " certain excen- 

 tricities" in my book. It is quite possible and even probable that certain 

 of my conclusions are erroneous, for every human being makes mistakes 

 sometimes, but my conclusions are not jumped at without critical studies, 

 they are not combinations of "happy ideas" or the dangerous outbursts of a 

 "brilliant mind" — but they are the logical results of careful and painstak- 

 ing investigations. They may be, as I have said, erroneous in certain cases, 

 but they are not "excentricities," and a perusal of my book should reveal 

 this to every ornithologist. 



Ernst Hartert. 



Subgenera, and Other Matters. 



While Dr. Hartert is not alone in considering that subgenera "are un- 

 necessary and undesirable," sympathizers with this view, taking natural- 

 ists at large, are apparently few and far between, judging by their works. 

 In faunistic papers and in ordinary references to species, subgenera are 

 preferably ignored, even by those who believe they subserve a useful pur- 

 pose. In works of a classificatory character, as monographs, manuals, 

 and systematic treatises on the birds of a large area or of particular coun- 

 tries, they should be no more omitted than the higher groups, since their 

 use in the case of a large genus serves to indicate the relative degree of 

 relationship of its different members. 



To subdivide such genera into minor groups, and label them A, B, C, 

 etc., or by some non-technical designation, as 'Blue' or 'Green,' in lieu of 

 giving them a name by which they can be easily referred to as groups, 

 only half meets the requirements of the case; it is only an ineffectual at- 

 tempt to 'beat the devil round the bush.' 



There is, and doubtless always will be, great diversity of opinion as to 

 the proper limits of genera. Dr. Hartert, for example, is exceedingly con- 



