2 
the open are naturally different from those of the woodlands; hence 
Manitoba has been taken as the western boundary of the zoological area 
dealt with in this book. 
Although not a scientifically complete check-list of the birds of Eastern 
Canada, this book is nearly so. A few species whose Canadian status is 
doubtful, and some of extreme rarity or of accidental occurrence, have 
been disregarded. The utmost freedom has been used in this respect and 
species have been admitted freely upon the basis of expediency; some as 
being of probable occurrence and to be looked for, others as illustrating 
some point of general interest more pointedly than regular native species, 
and some because in the past they have been confused with commoner 
forms. 
PLAN OF THE BOOK. 
The systematic arrangement (see Classification, page 5, and nomen- 
clature, page 7) used are those of the Check-list of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, third edition, 1910. Though this arrangement is 
acknowledged to be somewhat imperfect and its details tentative, it is 
that upon which most of the recent American bird literature is founded and 
is the one in common use in North America. 
In the treatment of subspecies a departure has been made from cur- 
rent practice, which the writer believes to represent more accurately the 
facts of nature and modern concepts. Species have been treated as 
aggregations of subspecies, each of equal rank and importance, and 
not, as is customary, as species with subordinate sub-species depen- 
dent upon them. The species is first given as a whole, including its 
subspecific races, and under a subhead mention is made of the special 
subspecies that occur within the geographical scope of the work. This has 
caused no confusion or change except in the use of vernacular names in 
which the reader will find a few departures from those given and authorized 
by the American Ornithologists’ Union. In the scientific nomenclature 
the true relative importance of species and subspecies has been expressed ; 
but the common names have not heretofore always reflected this conception 
of subordination and this fact in many cases has caused the use of definite 
subspecific terms when it was by the very nature of the case impossible to 
determine their correctness or when it was unadvisable to recognize them. 
Thus there has been a tendency to attach unwarranted importance to 
these minor distinctions in popular as well as scientific estimation. In the 
correction of this condition certain adaptations of common names have 
been necessary, but as little change as possible from accepted practice 
has been made. Older terms have been revived wherever possible, but as 
current names have also been given no confusion should result. It has, in 
some cases, been necessary to apply the recognized type subspecific name 
to the whole species and adopt a new one for the form so robbed. In doing 
this it was advisable that as little change should be made in current usage 
as was consistent with the end in view. Therefore, except where good 
reasons prevented, the new subspecific name was formed by prefixing 
an adjective to the specific term hitherto applied to it. Each departure 
from accepted practice has been decided upon its own merits. Though 
there can be little doubt as to the advisability of the principle of the reform, 
the manner of carrying it out has been the subject of much thought, con- 
siderable consultation with others, and some hesitation in individual cases. 
