Vol. X | Correspondence. ^°^ 



1S93 J 



I was permitted to examine all of Mr. Fannin's specimens in the 

 Victoria Museum but found no glioma skins among the californicum. If 

 Mr. Fannin had intended in any way to record gnoma instead of califor- 

 nicum, or to lump the two under one name, he failed to say anything 

 about it in a letter of exceptions to my paper written me on receipt of a 

 copy. On these accounts I thought, and still maintain, that it was just to 

 consider Fannin's reference to the Pygmy Owl as referring authoritatively 

 to no one form but presumably to californicum for the most part, and that 

 I, having an authentic specimen of gnoma from the interior, was justified 

 in recording it as a bird new to the recorded fauna of British Columbia. 

 Mr. Fannin, having taken no exception to this ruling, I trust C. F. B. 

 will accept it also, and absolve me in both instances. 



As to the value of my determinations on the status of certain species 

 and races in the A. O. (J. Check-list, this is not the time nor the place 

 for either professional or amateur to venture judgment. Between much 

 that we strive to decide in this line there is but the toss of a penny so far 

 as the worth of individual opinion goes. The fiat of a Committee on 

 Nomenclature is, logically and scientifically, not a whit better, perhaps, 

 but for the sake of peace and harmony we are glad to have it. 



Samuel N. Riioads. 



Philadelphia, Aug. S, iSgj. 



[The foot-note which Mr. Rhoads assumes that I ignored was by no 

 means overlooked. This foot-note related to a double-columned list of 

 birds headed by the words: "To the combined lists of Cooper, Suckley 

 and Lawrence twenty-five species of Washington birds are added. These 

 willi those not included in Mr. Lawrence's Gray's Harbor lists are :" [here 

 followed the list]. It seemed too unlikely that Mr. Rhoads could think it 

 worth while to institute such a formal comparison between his list and 

 that of any single one of the various previous writers on Washington birds, 

 and tin-reappeared no reason why Mr. Lawrence's lists should be selected 

 and the rest ignored. Did he mean it to be understood that the species 

 referred to were new for Washington (ruling out the Cooper-Suckley 

 records, much as he had done those of J. Iv. Lord) ? It certainly appeared 

 so, ami such was assumed to be the case. What Mr. Rhoads's real inten- 

 tions were, I am now even more in doubt. For in this letter he says "the 

 list is simply one of species seen by me and not recorded by Lawrence,'" yet 

 only a few lines above he has said it is a list "of additions to previous 

 faunal lists of Washington," thus, himself, definitely confirming my 

 conclusion which he says "grossly misrepresents'* him. Taking this 

 latter sentence in connection with the statement on the opening page of 

 the paper itself : "Since the Cooper-Suckley Pacific Railroad Reports 

 nothing of much value relating to Washington birds has been published 

 except the local lists of Mr. R. N. [sic] Lawrence," the inference is 

 unavoidable that at that time he really did not know of any other writers 

 on the subject. 



