200 Correspondence. [April 



One point more. I have seen it stated (I cannot at tliis moment 

 remember just where), that the fact that all recent American writers on 

 ornithology use trinomials is evidence that they endorse the system which 

 these trinomials represent. Now, as a matter of fact, this is not true; 

 but even if it were true^ the statement could not be made fairly upon such 

 evidence. It is well known that the prevailing systems of nomenclature 

 have be^n adopted by the large majority of American writers simply 

 because they tvere the prevailing systems, for convenience's sake. And if 

 some bolder and more independent spirit were to rebel against following 

 a prevailing idea with which he did not agree, and attempt to originate a 

 system for himself, he would very probably be 'set upon' as a conceited, 

 self-opinionated person, and have hurled at his heretical head some 

 such crushing sarcasm as 'he has become almost an ornithologist.' 



The 'amateur element' appreciate the desirability of having all classes 

 of American ornithological students work in harmony and in concert, and 

 it is for this reason that the unbelievers in trinomials desire to get rid 

 of their unbelief. 



Respectfully yours, 

 St. John, N. B. Montague Chamberlain. 



[We are glad to see that the objection to trimonials is not, as we in 

 writing our former reply supposed, that they are in themselves an objec- 

 tionable innovation in nomenclature — as opposed to strict adherence to 

 binomialism — but that their acceptance depends upon proof that it is 

 necessary to recognize varieties, or incipient species, at all in nomencla- 

 ture. We return to the subject, however, with a feeling that the doubters 

 may not be open to conviction by such evidence as can be readily put 

 before them on paper; but that their conversion would be easy could 

 we lay before them series of specimens illustrating the forms to which 

 trimonials are applied, showing them how different many of them are 

 in their extreme phases of divergence, and at the same time how com- 

 pletely they inosculate. 



As stated in our former reply, the best, and in fact most, naturalists the 

 world over believe it necessary to, and in practice do, recognize varieties 

 as a means of giving a correct and precise expression to the status 

 and relationship of a grade of forms differentiated to a degree that ren- 

 ders their recognition in nomenclature necessary if we would properly for- 

 mulate the facts of biology, although such forms are known to intergrade 

 and cannot, therefore, properly rank as species. Furthermore, the recog- 

 nition of varieties is much more prevalent now than formerly, in conse- 

 quence of better knowledge of the relationships and real status of such 

 forms, resulting from more favoi-able opportunities for study and the rapid 

 accumulation of material. Although Mr. Chamberlain does not even 

 imply that the 'unbelievers' of the 'amateur element' think they have a 

 better knowledge of what is required in the case than the specialists — the 

 experts in the subject, who are not only trained naturalists, but who have 

 had in hand an amount of material, and opportunities for judgment in such 



