I02 Rcce7it Literature. [January 



and, indeed, the only recognized Nomenclator in American Ornithologj-. 

 That which the Committee had stamped with the seal of the Union 

 become the current coin of the reahn. . . ." 



The nomenclature in the body of the new 'Key' being left unchanged, 

 the adjustment of the old nomenclature to the new is made through the 

 medium of the Appendix, where the two systems of names are arranged 

 in parallel columns, thus not only presenting his readers with the new 

 names, but at the same time affording a convenient means of collating 

 the old and the new. In the same connection some sixty species and 

 subspecies, with descriptions of the same, not included in the body of the 

 work, are interpolated, bringing the subject down to date as seen from 

 the standpoint of the author. This large number is partly due to the 

 inclusion of Lower California within the area covered bj' the new 'Key,' 

 in accordance with the boundaries of 'North America,' ornithologically 

 considered, adopted in the A. O. U. Check-List, but mainly, of course, 

 to birds added to the fauna since 1884. 



In his preface to the new edition (p. iii) Dr. Coues records "an earnest 

 protest, futile though it may be, against the fatal facility with which the 

 system of trinomials lends itself to sad consequences in the hands of 

 immature or inexperienced specialists," fearing that our excellent 'tri- 

 nominal tool,' and "the whole system of naming we have reared with 

 such care," be brought into disrepute. He, however, disclaims allusion 

 "to anything that has been done"; the warning relates to what may 

 happen in future if "more judicious conservatism than we have enjoyed 

 of late be not brought to bear down hard upon trifling incompetents." 

 "It may be assumed," he adds, "as a safe rule of procedure, that it is use- 

 less to divide and subdivide beyond the fair average ability of ornitholo- 

 gists to recognize and verify the i-esults." This, in an abstract sense, is 

 sound advice, much in line with sentiments and admonitions the present 

 writer has given voice to on several occasions. In the sentence which 

 follows the one last quoted (p. iv) we can hardly suppose the author 

 intends to imply that when specimens of a named variety require to be 

 'compared with the types' for their satisfactory identification that such 

 'varieties' should be always ignored. He must know that words often- 

 times fail to express differences which to the eye are not only readily 

 appreciable, but appeal to us as of so tangible a character as to require 

 nomenclatural recognition, presenting a fact to which it would be not 

 only a great convenience to have a handle, but one of which our science 

 must in some way take cognizance. Again, how often descriptions are 

 faulty, falling so far short of what they should be as in many cases to 

 prove practically valueless. It is not to be denied, however, that the 

 splitting process may be, and in some cases perhaps has been, carried too 

 far, and this, too, by those who would hardly fall into the category of 

 "trifling incompetents." Just how far division maybe profitably carried, 

 or is even necessary, is a hard question to decide, and one which taxes 

 alike conservatives and radicals. In the case of wide-ranging species, 

 diffused over an area of greatly varying climatic and other physical 



