1912 J Correspondence. 567 



his own attitude toward the genus. He must use generic names in his 

 'speciation' researches but he has no inchnation to halt the latter while 

 he investigates generic taxonomy. Consequently he cheerfully accepts 

 the opinions of the A. O. U. Committee on all generic problems and even 

 goes so far as to say that this is a function in which "the great value of a 

 committee of arbitration is beyond any possibility of dispute." In exactly 

 the same spirit investigators in other fields of ornithology accept the de- 

 cisions of the Committee in regard to subspecies. As a matter of fact the 

 two problems are precisely similar and the opinion of the Committee is 

 not one whit more valuable in deciding how many genera should be recog- 

 nized than it is in the case of recognition of subspecies. However we are 

 digressing from the point at issue. Mr. Grinnell charges that the Com- 

 mittee has been inconsistent — has gone too far in some cases and not far 

 enough in others. This may readily be granted and right here lies the crux 

 of the whole matter. How is the Committee to know when it has over- 

 stepped the line? How can any one judge of consistency in such matters? 

 Subspecies are separated from one another by all possible degrees of dif- 

 ference and the whole question as before stated is one of individual opinion. 

 Mr. Grinnell's suggestion of a committee of one for each family or 

 genus, as the case may be, does not appeal to the writer as practicable and 

 he doubts whether the opinion of a selected specialist on Fringillidae, as 

 to the number of recognizable races of Melospiza in California would be 

 any more acceptable to Mr. Grinnell than are the opinions of the long- 

 suffering Committee. 



If any practicable plan can be devised however by which the work of 

 the 'speciation specialist' may receive full recognition without impairing 

 the utility of the Check-List for other specialists, the writer would give 

 it his hearty support. And if the Committee could be relieved of the 

 burden of passing upon the merits of the various proposed subspecies 

 he feels sure that the proposition would be hailed with dehght ' from seven 

 different directions.' 



Any departure along these lines however would neces.sitate a recon- 

 sideration of all the subspecies of the Check-List and could not be exploited 

 until a new edition was demanded. Perhaps by that time a committee 

 may be found which will undertake this task and divide the subspecies into 

 two categories, (1) those regarded as of practical utility, as above explained; 

 (2) those recognized by 'specialists on speciation'. Then we should have 

 the entire liistory of each group before us. This would probably approach 

 nearer to consistency than does the present Check-List, in which most of 

 the inconsistency arises from the different attitude and different make-up 

 of the Committee at the times at which the various cases were considered. 

 This plan too would accord in a measure with Mr. Giinnell's suggestion 

 except that the utility line would not be drawn between the species and 

 the subspecies a proposal that as already explained is quite indefensible. 

 And now just a word upon some remarks of Mr. Grinnell regarding the work 

 of the Committee. He charges that the Committee has felt the necessity 



