330 Bergtold, October Birds of the Gila River. [july 



considerable list of birds collected or otherwise identified in the 

 month mentioned : the list is of necessity incomplete, for it cannot 

 include the large number of birds seen whose identity was suspected 

 but not established beyond a reasonable doubt. This difficulty 

 of identification is increased by the inherent peculiarities of the 

 local bird fauna: many bird races overlap here and at times it is 

 absolutely impossible to place a given bird in its subspecific niche 

 without shooting it, which, during most of these trips, the writer 

 was loath to do because he could not always preserve the skin. 



Even with the skin in hand, there has been uncertainty as to 

 the bird's exact relationship. A skin now in the writer's collection 

 illustrates well the difficulties confronting him in recording the 

 birds observed in this region, and too, the uncertainties which 

 present themselves to present day bird taxonomists. It is that 

 of a Junco, record No. 49 of the following list: the writer was quite 

 uncertain as to the Junco race to which the bird belonged, and sent 

 the skin, for identification, to two well known professional ornithol- 

 ogists. The first returned it saying, "It is impossible to state 



positively what the Junco is It is undoubtedly intermediate 



between typical oreganus and typical shiifeldti, and, in my opinion, 

 cannot be certainly referred to either"; and the second gentleman 

 returned the skin with no comment but labelled, "J. o. shiifeldti," 

 under which identification it is here listed, not because this identi- 

 fication is of any greater value than the first, but as being the 

 easiest way to untie the knot. 



Another example, illustrating other difficulties one may meet in 

 naming a species, is the skin of the bird recorded under No. 67 

 of this list; both of the above mentioned experts obviously agreed 

 as to what it was, yet one called the bird " Bceolophus wollweberi 

 wollweberi (= B. annexus Cassin)," and the second " Penthestes 

 wollweberi annexus " ! ^ 



It is with no captious feeling that the writer remarks on the 

 increasing confusion and complexity of nomenclature in ornitho- 

 logical work, reflected by the above experiences. Ornithology is, 

 with the writer, an avocation, not a vocation, and during the past 



1 It was to prevent such diversity as tliis, tnat tlie A. O. XJ. Cliecli-List was pub- 

 lished. The first expert identified the bird in accordance with the nomenclature 

 of the List; the second according to Iiis personal views, apparently without any 

 explanation. (Ed.l 



