-7 00 Correspondence. [J"ly 



altogether without cause, and is a natural reaction against a refinement of 

 classification, as regards genei-a, which in this country has been carried 

 quite too far, and against which there is also a reaction among experts 

 themselves. What you hope to see, I may venture to say, will be to a 

 large degi'ee realized in the next Check List of North American birds — 

 the A. O. U. List. It will necessarily be some time — perhaps a year or 

 more — before it will be in the hands of the public; but it is an open 

 secret that it will present, for one thing, a very great i-eduction in the 

 number of generic names — a return in this respect to almost the Audu- 

 bonian basis. 



But there is perhaps another thing which you overlook, and that is that 

 while many of the genera in our North American list have but one or two 

 species referred to them, they may be genera which have elsewhere many 

 species, and that in a list of the birds of the world, instead of having one 

 or two species, as is the case with Meriila, Saxicola, Mrmiis, Tkryotkorus, 

 Myiadestes, Eupho7iia, Spermophila, etc., they really include a dozen, or 

 twenty, or even more. 



Now, in regard to your paper sent for publication in 'The Auk.' From 

 the standpoint of the scientist the scheme unfolded is in many ways 

 so antagonistic to settled canons of nomenclatui-e as to be thoroughly im- 

 practicable. This is a frank statement of the case, dictated by the most 

 friendly motives. While I do not decline your article, as a friend I would 

 advise its withdrawal, for reasons above stated. If you pi-efer to see it 

 published, its proper place would be in the department of 'Correspondence,' 

 and its character would call for editorial comment. About what that 



would be yovi can infer from the tenor of this letter I now leave 



the matter in this way, and hope to hear from you soon in reply. 



Very truly yours, 



J. A. Allen. 



A Lay View of 'Ornithophilologicalities.' 



To THE Editors of The Auk : — 



Sirs : While reading the various articles which relate to the nomencla- 

 tui-e of birds, by Professor Merriam and Drs. Stejneger and Coues, which 

 have appeared in 'The Auk' and its predecessor, the lay mind is filled with 

 dismay. The predominant feeling is that if these literary amenities are 

 essential to the science, we must forego the science. One cannot help 

 thinking that a fitting caption for such papers as the dreary 'Ornithophi- 

 loloo-icalities' would have been that which Dante found above the 

 entrance to a less desolate region : "All hope abandon ye who enter 

 here." Where opinions are so radically opposed what gains can be 

 expected.' Has all the controversy hitherto been able to accomplish 

 anything.'' Do we not find even in so small a matter as the broad dis- 

 tinction between birds hatched naked and those hatched with a covering 

 that Dr. Coues says 'psilopsedic' and 'ptilopaedic' in place of the 'gymno- 

 pjedic' and 'dasypsedic' of other authors.? And is it not certain that each 

 author is prepared to maintain that his particular word is the more pre- 



