Introduction. 



There is considemblc diflercnco nf opinion nmon^ thr Hy8U'niutiHti> an U> wliich <>f tlii- rnccy lutcly ilcM-rilHil iin- wnrtliy <if rt'i'dttiiitinii, 

 and which are invalid. This difll-rencc uf opinion partially explains the apparent di»erepnncy iHtwirn the ninnlM'm ^t'ven liy Dr, ('mix In 

 the third edition of the Key to North Ameriam Bird», und liy Mr. Uiihiway in the Manual of Snrth Amrrican Hiril>, Imth pnMl.thiHl (lur- 

 ing the autumn of 1887. There are other iMiinta of difference betwc<'n theno works, and also Ulwcen the A'rt/ and the .4. O. U. Cktfk-l.i»l. 

 which it ie not noceseiary to explain here. 



There is little doubt but that the majority of Canadian omitholo(,'iHt« will ondorse the eoniHTVOliani of Dr. Coiiw; indeed, many 

 would go further in that direction, and restrict 'he nnnilKT of the snlmpceies to u very few, while wnne wniilil pi even xtill t'lirlher, ami 

 give no distinctive title to these races, and, with a strictly binomial iiomcnelalure, retain the former system of wMpience — placing; the Durinr* 

 first instead of lust. This will not lie wondered at when it is remcmliored tliat llieso innoviitinns are larcely clii" to the intliicnee of the 

 evolution theory of the origin of »|iecie8, which the major portion of the scientKie men of the I'liited Slates tweni to have accepted lu an 

 established fact, rather than a mere hypothesis, but which Camidiun students, iis a rule, eonsliler " not proven." 



It has l)een suggested that nn association of Canadian oniithoUigista be organized, and that this suelety undertake the formulation of 

 a system of classification and nomenclature which shall more truly reflect the Ideas on the sulij.'et whiili are current in tl Hnminiun. 

 The formation of such an association would be a goinl move — nothing, |)erhups, would tend more surely to the advain'enieiit i .e seieiiee 

 within our borders; but would the framing of a new code be cither wise or practicable? In the fin't place, where in tlie (.':inadla>i, or 

 body of Canadians, who have the equipment of technical knowledge and ex|K.'rience necewary for cueli an undertaking — who e.iuld give an 

 intelligent vote on all the points involved? And supposing that they had the skill, where wnul ' they firnl a sullieiently large enjlc iticm i.f 

 the birds of the country to enable them to settle nuiny of the (lucstious in dispute? Most certainly no su<'h eolleclinn can Ik' I'lMind In 

 Canada at present. If all the bird skins in the Dominion were- combined, they would not make a ginid working collection. In not one 

 Museum in the country are the birds of even a small locality well repre,sented. There are a few creditable private eulleetions, but imne of 

 these contain a sufficient series of skins to show the variations in plumage of all the 8|x>cie8 — the variations of sex and age and seasons, 

 to say nothing of individual and geographical variations. I have heard a'vcral Curators of our public Museums IhuisI that their eases con- 

 tained almost a " full representation " of the birds of Canada, but these gentlemen will probably think diilerently of the matter when they 

 know more about birds. * 



The State has done little, thug fur, to aid or encourage the formation of a collection of either the mumnuils or birds of the euuntry. 

 At the National Museum in Ottawa these branches have received but slight nttcntion. The s|)ccimen» of mauinuils there are too few to 1h' 

 worthy of mention, and while the coses of mounted birds make a fair display for general exhibition, the working nutuntlist fiinla little there 

 to assist him. 



If a Cunudian systcmatist required iii.terinl to enable him to determine some puzzling question, he would be obliged to go to the 

 United States for it, and even there lie would not find a good series of all species of our birds, esiiecially those of our northwestern intj'rior 



But apart from these considerations, — the lack of technical skill and material, — will it not Ihs wiser for Cana<lian ornithologists to 

 accept the determinations of the A. O. U. Committee, and avoid the confusion likely to result if two systems should \>v brought into 

 use? Those who are opposed to the new methods can wait at least until these shall have had u fair trial; and even if further innovations 

 ure attempted, or abuses arise, these will bring their own cure. Alreudy a wuming note bus Ixjen sounded. In the third edition of the Key. 

 Dr. CouES enters an earnest protest against the abuse of " variety making," which, as he points out, the pliability and ehutieity of the 

 trinomiul system renders liuble. He considers that some of the late rulings will not "survive the official etiiiuette of the present flutter in 

 Americon Ornithology," and states his fears that the " trinomial tool . . . will cut the threat of the whole syst<Mn of naming which 

 we have reared with such care." 



We can ufibrd to wait. Whatever is strong in the |>resent system will outlive all opposition and any prejudice there may Ix; against 

 it ; and that which is too weak to bear the strain of adverse criticism and the logic of facts, must yield. The inexorable law of the 

 survival of the fittest applies as surely to the works of science as tu the works of nature. 



