544' Dr. E. Hartert — Some Anticriticisms. 



clature (though first striking the eye in the headings of the 

 species) is only a minor detail and not the gist of science. 

 To be conservative in principle is not scientific. We cannot 

 arrest the progress of science and nomenclature, and we 

 must alter our views when we learn new facts and know 

 better. 



The " Editors " compare my treatment of species and 

 subspecies with that of Mr. Dresser, whom they " praised 

 for his steadfast adherence to the old-fashioned binomial 

 system of nomenclature/' and with whom they agree because 

 " even he recognises subspecies in certain cases/' If, how- 

 ever, the " Editors " had gone into details and had studied 

 some of the cases in question, they would have found that 

 just the fact that Mr. Dresser had recognised certain sub- 

 species and neglected others is the weakest point in his 

 book and makes it a very misleading mentor. Why, for 

 example, has Mr. Dresser recognised the various forms of 

 the Dipper, when, on the other hand, he has passed over in 

 silence more than a hundred other forms which are equally 

 or even more distinct ? That is a purely arbitrary proceeding, 

 and therefore not scientific. It is true that Mr. Dresser 

 ends his book with the sentence : " Subspecies described 

 under trinomial titles I have not considered it necessary to be 

 included " ; but is that a scientific method ? My opinion is 

 that they should only be passed over after due consideration 

 of their value, but not because they were " described under 

 trinomial titles." Such due consideration they have not 

 received in Mr. Dresser's c Manual ' — they were not quoted 

 because they were " described under trinomial titles." Thus 

 the synonymies in the ' Manual ' are incomplete and almost 

 useless, as one does not know which forms, inhabiting which 

 countries, have been named. But also many forms described 

 under binomial titles have not been duly considered in the 

 ' Manual/ or else such remarks as on p. 886, that Asio 

 caaariensis Mad. is not separable from Asia accipitrinus , 

 while it is a most distinct form of Asio otus, or that Strix 

 ernesti Kleinschm., which is by far the whitest form of 

 Barn-Owl, is a " dark race " of the latter, could not have 



