I OJ. Correspondence. [January 



advantageously employed in countries such as North America and Europe, 

 ■where large series can be obtained from many different localities. In 

 other parts of the world their use would at present be attended with 

 much inconvienience, it being impossible to ascertain in verj many cases, 

 from lack of specimens, whether these intergradations exist or not." 



As showing further the prog'ress of trinomialism in England — the 

 stronghold of binomialists — we may quote the following from Mr. 

 Seebohm's 'History of British Birds' (Part II, p. xii) : — 



"English ornithologists have for the most part ignored these interme- 

 diate forms and with characteristic insular arrogance have sneered at 

 their American confreres for adopting trinomial names which their recog- 

 nition demands. In this, as in so many other things, our American 

 cousins are far in advance of the Old World. One English ornithologist, 

 however, deserves to be mentioned as an honorable exception. Mr. 

 Bowdler Sharp has boldly braved the blame of the Drs. Dry-as-dust and 

 the Professors Red-tape, and the volumes of the 'Catalogue of Birds of the 

 British Museum' hitherto represent almost the only European publications 

 on ornithology which are not behind the age in this respect. The bino- 

 mial name will probably be generally used as a contraction ; but it must 

 never be forgotton that it is only a contraction. The difference between 

 a species and a subspecies, though in some cases not very clear, is far 

 too important a fact to be sacrificed to a craze for a uniform binomial 

 nomenclature." 



[We may add that Dr. Gadow, in the eighth volume of the same monu- 

 mental work, has followed closely, in this respect, 'in the footsteps of 

 Mr. Sharpe. 



On the continent there are already notable and numerous converts to the 

 system, among whom we may mention Count von Berlepsch, Drs. Reich- 

 enow, Hartlaub, Severtzoft", Collett, and Stejneger, who have all em- 

 ployed trinomials in their recent papers, while Dr. Cabanis shows an 

 unmistakable leaning in the same direction. Professor Schlegel, of the 

 Leyden Museum, is perhaps to be counted as the father of the system, he 

 having for more than twenty years made use of trinomials in precisely the 

 sense in which thej- have come into current and almost universal use 

 among American ornithologists, and to a large extent among mammalo- 

 gists, herpetologists, and ichthyologists. During most of these years he 

 has been cited as a flagrant example of a 'polynomialist,' and on many 

 occasions sneered at for his heterodoxy. While he antedates Americans in 

 the systematic use of trinomials for intergrading forms, we are in position 

 to know that the 'American school' was the spontaneous outcome of our 

 studies of American birds, and that the use of trinomials was forced upon 

 us bv conviction of their utility and necessity. 



While lack of space forbids our enlarging upon this important subject 

 in the present connection, we trust we have thrown some light upon the 

 questions raised by our correspondent, and that the many estimable 

 workers for whom he may be supposed to speak will see that the use of 

 trinomials is by no means a freak in nomenclature, countenanced by merely 

 a small following of American writers. — J. A. A.] 



