Vol xxx 

 1913 



Correspondence. 151 



an abundance of material at their disposal, I am forced to the conclusion 

 thai either they are indifferent to the subject or believe that all North 

 American subspecies of value have already been recognized. Neither of 

 these standpoints, I think it must be admitted, is one likely to result in a 

 favorable attitude toward proposed subspecies, though the intention to 

 be just to all cannot be questioned. 



Loyalty to ideals or a cause is certainly noble in a nation or an individual, 

 but it must be founded on reason and judgment else it may degenerate 

 to mere servility, and I find many points in both Check-List and Supple- 

 ment t hat fail to commend themselves to me. That the recognition of sub- 

 species is of great value anyone who has read Eagle-Clarkes 'Studies in 

 Bird Migration' will readily admit. That their recognition must be partly 

 at least a matter of opinion, and that the Committee often have more 

 material than the original describer is no doubt also true; still I totally 

 fail to see why such a bird as Creciscus colurniculus is recognized as a full 

 species and Dryobates scalaris symplectus not thought even subspecifically 

 distinct from Dryobates scalaris cactophilus; why Phalacrocorax pelagicus 

 robustus and resplendens, Dryobates villosus leucomelas and auduboni, Dryo- 

 bates pubescens medianus and nelsoni, Molothrus aler obscurus and Ammo- 

 dram us savannarum floridanus are considered good subspecies and the 

 characters given for Molothrus aler artemisice deemed 'too slight.' In the 

 Anatida? we find Olor recognized as a genus on a difference in feathering at 

 the bill that occurs only in the young, and Charitonetta on differences of 

 even slighter value, while Aristonelta, Erionetla, Melanitta and Pelionetta, 

 in which differences in the facial feathering or shape of bill persist through 

 life, are called subgenera. 



Nowhere can I find any reference to Anas plalyrhynchos grainlandica — 

 a good subspecies and a valuable one, as in range and characters it is some- 

 what intermediate between the Mallard and Black Duck. From the fact 

 that the Mallard is given only a binomial name I should infer that A. p. 

 groznlandica was not considered good, were it not for the fact that I find 

 such European stragglers to our shores as Corvus frugilegus, Corvus comix, 

 Sturnus vulgaris, Hirundo ruslica, Chelidonaria urbica and Motacilla alba 

 also given only binomial names, in spite of the fact that subspecies of each 

 are recognized by European ornithologists. That the Committee meant 

 they did not recognize these subspecies, or that, the actual specimens on 

 which the American records were made not being in evidence, they felt 

 themselves unable to determine definitely the proper subspecies was my 

 first impression, though nothing on this point can I find in the book; but 

 by study of the 'Ranges' I discovered the Committee considered the so- 

 called subspecies of these birds were really independent species. For the 

 ranges of Corvus comix, Corvus frugilegus, Sturnus vulgaris and Chelidonaria 

 urbica as given in the Check-List practically coincide with the ranges of the 

 subspecies C.f. frugilegus, S. v. vulgaris and C. u. urbica as given by Hartert, 

 while with Hirundo ruslica and Motacilla alba the ranges include that of 

 //. r. ruslica and M. a. alba with one or more additional races. In the 



