1909 ] Brewster, Something More about Black Ducks. 177 



to be looked after in some other way." In other words the question 

 is not so much one of principle — scientific or otherwise — as of 

 expediency and of accepted usage. It will not do for those of us 

 who have tacitly agreed to abide by the rules laid down in our Code, 

 to disregard them when, as must occasionally happen, they run 

 counter to our personal convictions or preferences. Canon XXIX 

 of the Code (Canon XXV of the revised edition) provides that 

 "when a species is separated into subspecies, or when species 

 previously supposed to be distinct are found to intergrade, the 

 earliest name applied to any form of the group shall be the specific 

 name of the whole group." In the Black Duck group, as repre- 

 sented by its two more northern-ranging forms, we have now two 

 names, and two only, to consider, rubripes 1902 and tristis 1909. 

 As rubripes is clearly the earlier of the two it must become the 

 specific name for this portion of the group. With obscura we have 

 nothing further to do since it cannot again be used for any North 

 American Duck in the genus Anas. 



Under happier auspices I should have welcomed the chance of 

 suggesting a name for the Black Duck. To have won the right to 

 do so by being the first ornithologist to differentiate and describe 

 so fine a bird would have been just cause for honest pride. But 

 merely to replace a long-established name by a new and hence 

 unfamiliar one is but an empty honor, in which I take no satisfac- 

 tion. Indeed, I should not have cared to meddle in the matter at 

 all had it not been for the purpose of correcting the misapprehension 

 that has arisen respecting the present attitude of the Committee 

 with regard to rubripes. For this form I am in a way responsible 

 — as its original describer. I believe too strongly that it is a 

 good subspecies to be willing to have it neglected or overlooked 

 because of any confusion or misunderstanding due to the some- 

 what changed application of its name. That the characters which 

 I have ascribed to it are presented by great numbers of specimens, 

 and that with many of these they are so pronounced as to be easily 

 recognized at gun-shot distance in living birds — especially when 

 seen on wing — no one at all familiar with them seems able to deny. 

 But there are a few ornithologists and sportsmen, I understand, 

 who maintain — or at least suspect — that they are age or sexual 

 characteristics, having no racial significance. Among these men, 



