Vol. XIV 
1897 
General Notes. 231 
violates that consensus — does not express our views. In this particular 
case, the sequence of subfamilies should have been Merginz, (2r¢sma- 
tura,as perhaps type of another subfamily Erismaturine), Fuliguline, 
Anatine, (Azx? Dendrocygna? ), Anserine, and Cygnine. 
This I regard as the most general fault of the A.O.U. Check-List — 
reversal of sequence of families, coupled with non-reversal, as a rule, of the 
sequence of genera within the families. If my criticism be pertinent, the 
case is of course incurable; the fault runs through and vitiates the whole 
performance as a constitutional vice which can only be eradicated by 
tearing the List to pieces and putting it together again in better form. 
The sooner we do this, the betterfor the good name of the A.O. U. among 
ornithologists of mature judgment. 
The numeration of our species and subspecies, which we fondly hoped 
would be a fixture forever, already shows signs of that mutability which is 
incident, alas! to all human affairs. The numbers are already mixed up 
by transfers, changes of a, 6, c, etc., or defective by eliminations, or 
redundant byadditions. Confusion has begun already and now threatens 
to defeat measurably the purpose of those numbers. Several species and 
subspecies are no longer identifiable by the numbers they bear, for their 
numbers have been changed. Again, our system of numbering does not 
permit us always to interpolate additions to the list in the places where 
they belong. Take the genus Melosfzza, for instance; or Ofocorys (I 
refuse to write ‘‘ Ofocorzs,” as the birds are not bugs). The subspecies 
of Melospiza fasciata were lettered a, 4, c,etc., to the best of our ability, in 
what seemed their proper order, at the time when only a certain number 
of them were known, but when certain other groups of subspecies came 
up, we had no alternative to tacking them on in the order of their dis- 
covery, not being able to interpolate them in their obviously proper 
places, without throwing a, 3b, c, etc., out of alphabet. It is true that 
some of these so-called ‘forms’ of Melosfiza are figments of the imagi- 
nation —airy nothings to which we have chosen to give ‘local habitation 
and a name’; but this fact does not do away with the objection I raise, 
that they have entered our List out of their obvious proper order. 
It is earnestly to be hoped that both the extant editions of the Check- 
List may be officially cancelled and formally repudiated in the near 
future ; both being then superseded by a third List, drawn up anew. 
—ExLuiotr Covues, Washington, D. C. 
