^°\912^'^] Correspo7idence. 563 



in good standing on tlie Check-List represent forms far beyond their 

 limited powers of discrimination. They are confused by differences due 

 to age, sex, season, individual variation, and such adventitious factors as 

 wear and fading. This unpopularity of the subspecies is evident in the 

 way they are treated in most popular works on ornithology. They are 

 either disposed of in diamond-type footnotes or appendices, or they are 

 omitted altogether. Not infrequently such opprobrious terms are intro- 

 duced as 'alleged,' 'extremely slight,' 'subjective,' etc. Yet ninety- 

 nine percent of bird students will resent most vehemently any intimation 

 that their powers of discrimination are limited! 



The poor Committee has the amateur on the one hand and the specialist 

 on the other. And neither of these constituencies is satisfied with the 

 present rulings in the Check-List. The term ornithology is a mighty 

 broad one; the phases of the study are many. A man may become an 

 eminent ornithologist in psychology, in anatomy, in classification in the 

 large, in economics — and not have need of any particular ability or knowl- 

 edge in the technique of species-discrimination. The amateur, as far as 

 subspecific discriminative ability is concerned, constitutes practically 

 all of the Associates of the A. O. U., surely a majority of the Members, 

 and not a few of the Fellows. 



Why does the Committee discommode this great majority by 'accept- 

 ing' as many subspecies as it does? Is it fair to the conscientious student 

 of speciation to maltreat the results of his work as instanced in the genus 

 Dryobates in the Sixteenth Supplement? 



It seems clear, upon any basis I can think of, that the A. O. U. Check- 

 List with its supplements is of late failing markedly in its usefulness. 

 This is because of the Committee's unhappy attempt at striking a mean 

 between the demands of amateur and specialist. The interests of one or 

 the other should be sacrificed; and as the amateur is in the vast majority, 

 the Check-List should be remodeled to meet his requirements. An expedi- 

 tious way to do this would be to eliminate all subspecies. There would 

 thus be but one name for the Robin from the Atlantic to the Pacific, only 

 one Song Sparrow and one Horned Lark in all North America. A state- 

 ment could be appended, wherever appropriate, to the effect that there is 

 geographic variation within the range, birds from desert regions being 

 small and pale, those from the northwest being large and dark; etc. 



1 venture to say that such a consummation would be luiiled with delight 

 by the rank and file of bird students, if not by every one. The interpola- 

 tion of subspecies in small type as in the Third Edition, is a confusion. 

 As stated before, the subspecies problem as now handled is unsatisfactory 

 to practically all concerned. Such a working list of North American 

 birds should accord with the most modern findings in classification, nomen- 

 clature and geographic distribution. The Committee would find good 

 use for its talents in keeping such a list up to date. 



Now, I am not for one moment advocating cessation of activities on 

 the part of the student of speciation. He must pursue his investigation 



