1884. 1 Correspo>/den< e. '^99 



stiry should remcnibcr that tliev gained such happ^' coiisumination only 

 through a gradual process of reasoning, and should not expect those to 

 whom the subject is comparatively new to reach the same plane of 

 thought at a single bound. For every man, worthy the name of student, 

 will ask a reason for each successive step, and not take them simply at 

 some other man's dictitm — the day for that has passed. 



That which is very generally considered antagonism to trinomialism is 

 not, so far as the American amateui- ornithologists are concerned, an 

 opposition to the use of three terms to distinguish varieties from species, 

 but an unbelief in the necessity of recognizing varieties by any distinc- 

 tive appellation. Prove to us that varieties are a necessity, that trino- 

 mials are an advance toward 'exactness of expression,' without an 

 overbalancing loss in complication and increased difficulty in study, and 

 we will accept the trinomial pure and simple- — without any connecting 

 term — as an improvement upon any previous method of denoting these 

 forms. We harbor no 'Dr. Dry-as-dust' 'craze' for a purely binomial 

 nomenclature, but we do protest against the propagation of anj' system 

 which unnecessarily creates obstacles to the study of the science, instead 

 of simplifying it; we do ask that our leaders shall not take a step back- 

 ward and force upon us something which is barely more than a change, 

 and not only no improvement, but a palpable injury; that we be not 

 ■dragged into a 'craze' for trinomialism by following the lead of an 

 'American school,' in whose splended abilities and brilliant performances 

 •every American amateur feels a glowing pride. 



But while stating all this I must not allow it to be thought that the 

 unbelievers are blind to the possibility of their unbelief being based upon 

 misunderstanding, or perhaps ignorance; they fullv realize that this may 

 be the case — hence these questions. 



Our stumbling-blocks may be stated in a few words. We conceive that 

 the recognition of varieties tends to create confusion in classification and 

 nomenclature, and increases the difficulty of identifying specimens. We 

 do not see that by it any advance toward exactness has been secured; and 

 it appears to us that to gain this advantage, and to be consistent, and 

 carry to its legitimate end the argument for their adoption, every varia- 

 tion from a given type must receive a distinctive name; necessitating not 

 ■alone the recognition of varieties of species, but also of varieties of 

 varieties almost without limit. 



This idea is, of course, too absurd to deserve a moment's earnest 

 thought; and, considering that zoological classification is to some degree 

 artificial, and that only an approximation to complete exactness can 

 be reached, we are forced to the conclusion that, on the whole, a better 

 result would be accomplished if those forms which are sufficiently 

 differentiated to demand a distinctive name were classed as species 

 instead of varieties — that when a Song Sparrow ceases to be a Song 

 Sparrow it were called something else — and a pure and simple binomial 

 nomenclature were thus retained, the less important variations being 

 understood through the medium of a general law. 



