General Notes. 233 



such forms as the writer considers valid and trenchantly defined species 

 and those which he views as mere geographical varieties, except in so far 

 as this may be indicated in the general text. A good illustration of the 

 inadequacy of binomials is seen when their strict employment necessitates 

 the addition of several lines, it may be pai-agraphs, to the text, with the 

 alternative of leaving the author's precise estimate of the rank of a named 

 form in obscurity. 



The change from the binomial towards a more comprehensive system has 

 been a somewhat gradual one, and the use of an explanatory abbreviated 

 term, as •' var." or " subsp.," was probably a necessary compromise, paving 

 the way, as we believe, for the final and universal adoption of the pure trino- 

 mial. With a general understanding of the exact significance of the trino- 

 mial, as at present employed, we see not the slightest necessity for the use of 

 the above expressions, or, in fact, for the interposition of any explanatory 

 term, since such may be understood as implied in the trinomial itself, as 

 contrasted with the binomial, which may be limited to such absolutely de- 

 fined species as are not known to intergrade. 



Mr. Ridgway's plan of the use of Greek letters would certainly have an 

 advantage over the method of writing var. or subsp. in so far as it is less 

 cumbersome, but its seeming advantage of greater precision would, as Mr. 

 Allen has shown, inevitably lead to confusion in the instance of forms 

 treated differently by different writers, or by the same writer at different 

 times. 



We therefore unhesitatingly express our preference for the pure trino- 

 mial. — H. W. Henshaw, Washington, D. C. 



Note on Helminthophaga gunnii, Gibbs. — The bird described in 

 the Grand Rapids " Daily Democrat " of June I, 1879, as a new species of 

 Helminthophaga, for which the above name was proposed, has been recently 

 forwarded to the Smithsonian Institution for examination ; and having hp-d 

 the privilege of inspecting the example in question, it gives me great 

 pleasure to offer a few remarks concerning it. In the first place, it may 

 be stated that Mr. Purdie's surmise (see his article in the July number 

 of this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 185), that the specimen might be merely a 

 variation of H. leucohronchialis , Brewster, is correct. - The specimen col- 

 lected by Mr. Gunn, and named after that gentleman, is in all essential 

 respects like the type of H. leucohronchialis, (which, through the courtesy 

 of its owner, 1 exa*ined several years ago,) except that the breast has 

 a large, well-defined patch of bright gamboge-yellow, while the upper 

 parts are much less brightly colored, both the yellow of the crown (es- 

 pecially posteriorly) and the bluish-gray of the nape, back, and wings 

 being obscured by a wash of olive-green. The yellow wing-patch is also 

 more restricted than in the male. The yellow breast-patch, which is very 

 abruptly defined anteriorly against the pure white of the jugulum, does 

 not extend back to the flanks and abdomen, but is strictly limited to the ■ 



