^°ls^'^] General Notes. 23 I 



violates that consensus — does not express om- views. In this particular 

 case, the sequence of subfamilies should have been Merging, {Erisma- 

 tura, as perhaps type of another subfamily Erismaturin*), Fuligulinse, 

 Anatinte, (A/.x.? Dendrocygnaf), AnserincC, and Cygninye. 



This I regard as the most general fault of the A. O.U. Check-List — 

 reversal of sequence of families, coupled with non-reversal, as a rule, of the 

 sequence of genera within the families. If my criticism be pertinent, the 

 case is of course incurable; the fault runs through and vitiates the whole 

 performance as a constitutional vice which can only be eradicated by 

 tearing the List to pieces and putting it together again in better form. 

 The sooner we do this, the better for the good name of the A. O.U. among 

 ornithologists of mature judgment. 



The numeration of our species and subspecies, which we fondly hoped 

 would be a fixture forever, already shows signs of that mutability which is 

 incident, alas ! to all human affairs. The numbers are already mixed up 

 by transfers, changes of «, b, c, etc., or defective by eliminations, or 

 redundant by additions. Confusion has begun already and now threatens 

 to defeat measurablv the pui-pose of those numbers. Several species and 

 subspecies are no longer identifiable by the numbers they bear, for their 

 numbers have been changed. Again, our system of numbering does not 

 permit us alwavs to interpolate additions to the list in the places where 

 they belong. Take the genus Afelospiza, for instance; or Otocorys (I 

 refuse to write " Otocoris" as the birds are not bugs). The subspecies 

 of Melospiza fasciata were lettered «, b, c, etc., to the best of our ability, in 

 what seemed their proper order, at the time when only a certain number 

 of them were known, but when certain other groups of subspecies came 

 up, we had no alternative to tacking them on in the order of their dis- 

 coverv, not being able to interpolate them in their obviously proper 

 places, without throwing a, b, c, etc, out of alphabet. It is true that 

 some of these so-called ' forms ' of Melospiza are figments of the imagi- 

 nation — airy nothings to which we have chosen to give ' local habitation 

 and a name'; but this fact does not do away with the objection I raise, 

 that they have entered our List out of their obvious propei- order. 



It is earnestly to be hoped that both the extant editions of the Check- 

 List may be officially cancelled and formally repudiated in the near 

 future ; both being then superseded by a third List, drawn up anew. 

 — Elliott Coues, Washington, D. C. 



