1S.S4.] Corrcspo)i(Ie)ire. lOI 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



^Correspondents are requested to write briefly and to the point. Xo attention will 

 he paid to a/ionymons cominunicationsi\ 



Are Trinomials Necessary? 



To THE Editors of The Auk : — 



Sirs: I purpose taking advantage of the ■Correspondence' department 

 to ask some of those who are most conversant with the subject to kindly 

 explain through these pages, why it was considered necessary to adopt 

 trinomial nomenclature for American ornithology? Or perhaps the 

 object which I desire to achieve will be more clearly defined if I put 

 the question thus : Why was it considered necessary to institute that 

 division in zoological classification termed 'variety.' for which trinomials 

 are used ? 



I do not ask this merely* for the sake of provoking a discussion on the 

 subject, nor because I consider that, in the event of a discussion ensuing, 

 it is either probable or desirable that any change shall be effected in the 

 minds of those who advocate the use of trinomials. I ask it simplv to 

 have the whole matter plainly set forth, and, if possible, an end put to 

 the opposition to this system, which is at present so felt bv some of our 

 students; an opposition which it would be unfair to suppose would be 

 persisted in if the reasons for adopting the system were thoroughlv under- 

 stood. 



Let me state just here, that I do not wish to assert that this opposition 

 occurs in the ranks of the more advanced of American students — the 

 ■scientists' — for lean not say from personal knowledge whether it does 

 or does not exist there; indeed so far as I am aware, it is found onlv 

 among a portion of my brethren of the 'amateur element'; and while 

 candor compels me to acknowledge that in some cases the objections are 

 undefined and unreasonable, there are others, again, who support their 

 opinions by strong and lucid arguments. 



Nor need these gentlemen be at all ashamed to admit their position, for 

 similar opinions are held by many of the savants of Europe. I can not. at 

 the moment of writing, recall the name of any English ornithologist who 

 has written in favor of this system, excepting Mr. Henry Seebohm. 



Mr. Harting, the editor of the 'Zoologist,' and who is a member of the 

 British Ornithologists' Union, as well as an F.L.S., and an F.Z.S., has 

 strongly condemned it; and not so much as one trinomial has been placed 

 in the recently issued catalogue of British Birds, published by the B. O. 

 U., and known as the 'Ibis List.' Proof that this omission was not 

 accidental, occasioned, as it might be argued, by the isolated character of 

 the British fauna, is furnished by the list. For instance, the two species 

 of the Hawk Owl, the American and the European, are named bv the 

 American systematists respectively Sur?iia fimerea, and Sitrnia fiinerea 

 iiliilci; while in the 'Ibis List' they stand simply as Siiriiia futierea. and 

 Surttia itlula. 



