Vol. XIII. 

 1913 



J Correspondence. en 



perusal and comment. Before dealing with Captain White's 

 trenchant criticisms upon the "Check-list" and report, and (by 

 inclusion) upon the scientific attainments of the members of the 

 " Check-hst " Committee, I wish to make it absolutely clear that 

 {a) I do not herein necessarily express the views of the committee 

 named, but simply my own as a member of such, and {b) I do not 

 admit the right of a member of the R.A.O.U. (who attended that 

 session) to make publicly post-sessional attacks upon the " Check- 

 list " and report. Obviously the sessional meeting at which the 

 report was presented was the proper place for discussion and 

 criticism. However, as Captain White is the accredited champion, 

 in Australia, of trinomiahsm, constitutional strictness may, in such 

 special circumstances, be relaxed without perhaps creating a pre- 

 cedent for further transgressions. 



DeaUng firstly with the most important of Captain White's 

 criticisms — namely, his interrogative fulmen, " How can a list 

 (' Check-list ') stand when it contains so many very shaky sub- 

 species which are called species ? " and his citation in support of 

 two instances, Zosterops halmatitrina and Petroica camphelli — 

 I answer simply that neither of such is called a species in the 

 "Check-list," but that each is called a sub-species in it. As to 

 the alleged instability of the species, let me emphasize the facts 

 that the former sub-species was named by Mr. A. G. Campbell, 

 and the latter by the late Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, and that both sub- 

 species have been confirmed as such by Mr. Gregory Mathews, and 

 also by the collective and final " judgment " of the "• Check-list " 

 Committee. 



The second most important of Captain White's criticisms is 

 contained in his statement that he did not consider that the 

 "Check-list" was adopted by the ornithologists of Australia, 

 l)ecause the members who attended the Tasmanian session did not 

 fairly represent Australian ornithologists. In reply, the critic is 

 reminded that, in the first place, the " Check-list " was signed by 

 six ornithologists who, when elected, were considered as fairly 

 representing Australian ornithology, and that, in th^ second place, 

 a printed circular was posted to every member of the Union, in 

 ample time, notifying the date and place of the session, and also 

 notifying the special day set apart during the session to receive the 

 report of the "Check-list" Committee. I learn from trustworthy 

 sources that the session was in point of attendance the most 

 successful one of- the Union ever held, and that, as regards the 

 adoption of the "Check-list," there was only one real dissentient. 



The third most important of Captain White's criticisms is his 

 challenge — " What right has anyone to draw a line at Gould and 

 say 'That is the limit ?' " Presuming that Captain White means 

 " starting point " when he says " limit," I point out that no one 

 person has so drawn such a line, but the Royal Ornithologists' 

 Union, acting within its own territory, has done so. Why not ? 

 Captain White may as well ask what right has anyone, or any body, 

 association, or congress, to draw a line at the date of the " loth 



