J.c6 Correspondence. Fo"!' 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



The Use of Trinomials. 



Editors of ' The Auk ' : — 



Dear Sirs : — While further discussion of trinomials is perhaps unnec- 

 essary I am tempted to comment upon some misleading statements in 

 Mr. Loomis's article in the July issue of ' Tlie Auk,' especially since his 

 paper so thoroughly voices the popular outcry against the recognition of 

 geographic races, and would seem to dispose of the difficulties in the case 

 so easily. 



(i) Mr. Loomis's parallel between the recognition in nomenclature of 

 sexes and seasonal plumages on the one hand and geographic races on the 

 other seems ill founded. It is true of course that we do not recognize 

 plumages as distinct species when we have learned their real nature, but 

 any one who has read Dr. Dwight's paper (Auk, 1902, p. 248) will surely 

 admit that we have by no means abandoned a distinct nomenclature for 

 plumages ; indeed, the most flagrant trinomial must pale into insignifi- 

 cance beside the "compound juveno-non-nuptial plumage" ! 



(2) Mr. Loomis constantly speaks of "geographic variants " and "full 

 fledged species " as if the two were readily distinguishable. If he can 

 formulate any way by which we can separate species and subspecies 

 except by individual opinion, he has indeed solved the problem. It seems 

 to me that the one fact that is being inevitably forced upon us by modern 

 systematic study is that the "geographic variants" are the fundamental 

 elements which in any nomenclature must receive primary recognition. 

 Many of our old-time " species " have been found utterly inadequate in their 

 application and the independent recognition of their components and of 

 allied forms unknown when the "species" were established is inevitable. 

 To extend the limits of a "species" to include without further comment 

 such diverse forms as the extremes of the Song Sparrow series would ren- 

 der systematic nomenclature absurd and well nigh useless. 



Dr. Allen has to my mind put the matter very clearly when he claimed 

 that we can be no more expected to keep our investigations in sj'stematic 

 zoology within the limits easily comprehended by the laity than the his- 

 tologist can be expected to confine his labors to the same bounds. 



Dr. Dwight's statement, after his exhaustive studies of plumages, that 

 "the facts about plumages and moults do not lend themselves to simple 

 explanation " and "will no doubt seem obscure and complicated " applies 

 exactly and with added force to modern systematic researches. 



That our present rules of nomenclature may have to be altered in some 

 respects I will admit, but as I have already stated (Condor, 1903, p. 43) 

 I regard the preservation of trinomials as of the greatest importance. 



Very truly yovirs, 



WiTMER Stone. 

 Acad. Nat. Set'., P/it'ia., Sept. 17, 1903. 



