562 Correspondence. [oct. 



While in such matters as the above one may accept the conchision of 

 some one systematic worker, the elements in each case are of such a nature 

 that a properly qualified committee of several members can undoubtedly 

 render a correct ruling in a greater number of cases than can one man. 

 Hence the demand for committee action, over that of any one individual. 



Examination of the Sixteenth Supplement shows that of proposed 

 additions to the Check-List from the category of vagrant species, four 

 were accepted and three were rejected. In this function (number 3) the 

 rulings of the Committee are gladly accepted. They have considered the 

 evidence offered in each instance, and have rendered judgment. 



Further scrutiny shows that in the Sixteenth Supplement, function 

 number 4 was exercised in 34 cases. Thirteen newly proposed subspecies 

 were accepted, 19 were rejected, and two proposed cancellations were 

 rejected. It is this function that, to my mind, has been unsatisfactorily 

 performed. Ha! I can hear the scornful remark from at least seven 

 directions: The splitter is sore; his pet subspecies were turned down! 

 Granted; but let me try to discuss the problem dispassionately, and may 

 my readers consider the matter in like mind. 



Up to the present time the Committee has with more and more difficulty 

 tried to meet two totally different ideals in the matter of including sub- 

 species in its Check-List. The trained student of speciation, whom certain 

 thoughtless ones attempt to ridicule by the term 'splitter,' has earned 

 the ability to distinguish characters of phylogenetic value from the host 

 of others which are the confusion of the amateur. This kind of specialist 

 finds it more and more in his power to discriminate the lesser differentiated 

 forms; his senses, his tools for measuring, are becoming refined, and he 

 can discriminate differences which the dilettante cannot. Liken the 

 development of the professional systematic ornithologist to that of the 

 trained microscopist, in whatever field. Would anyone for a moment 

 entertain seriously the dictum that any organisms, which future increase 

 in precision on the part of both the individual and his instruments enable 

 him to discern, should be deemed beneath notice, "not worthy of recogni- 

 tion by name," just because the amateur finds difficulty in seeing them? 



Arguments along this line ought to be unnecessary in defense of the 

 systematic ornithologist. The difficulty comes when the Committee is 

 confronted with the results of his refined work. Its action has been 

 anything but consistent. Sometimes the Committee accepts the results 

 of the systematist's work in their entirety; occasionally the whole thing is 

 discarded; and in the last supplement forms are 'accepted' and 'rejected' 

 in hit or miss fashion, to the wonderment of the beholder who happens to 

 be posted in any of the groups affected. 



Evidently the Committee feels that it cannot go to the limit. The 

 populace will not stand for it! 



For there is, on the other hand, the vast majority of amateur bird stu- 

 dents who are confused by the multiplicity of names. Yet they require 

 a reference list of North American birds. Many of the subspecies already 



