146 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 918 



standardization can not be arrived at, it does 

 seem possible that a comparative one canj 

 wbereby each observer's records may vary 

 slightly from those of others yet be strictly 

 comparable with themselves and approximately 

 with those of others. To arrive at such a con- 

 clusion, some uniformity in the use of terms 

 should be understood, and for such use a list 

 of terms as before mentioned is of value. 



To fulfill its mission, such a standard set 

 of definitions should conform to the present- 

 day average use, and the question is therefore, 

 not what the strict dictionary or grammatical 

 meaning may be, but what has been and is 

 their meaning in present-day practise. Viewed 

 in this light, I think Mr. Kuser's list is sub- 

 ject to criticism, and some objection can be 

 made to his proposed use and interpretation 

 ■of terms. 



Should these remarks of mine be found not 

 to tally with the conceptions of others, it will 

 be but a concrete example of the variation in 

 interpretation of these commonly used phrases 

 and but another proof of the advisability of 

 some such system of standardization. 



Very Common. — Mr. Kuser says this is the 

 same as " abundant." Are there not various 

 degrees of commonness and does not a species 

 become more common before it arrives at 

 abundant ? " Very common " is in such gen- 

 eral use and carries such a clear concept that 

 I should hesitate to discard it. At any rate, 

 in practise it has not the same meaning as 

 " abundant." 



Usually Common. — Mr. Kuser says this is 

 equal to " common." I think this is a mis- 

 take. According to my, and what I think is 

 the general conception, " usually common " 

 signifies that the species varies in numbers in 

 time and place, but is more often common 

 than not. It infers a rule with many excep- 

 tions. 



Quite Common. — The academic and prac- 

 tical use of words is here confused. Though 

 in theory the eil'ect of the prefixing of the 

 " quite " to " common " is neutral or slightly 

 intensive, in practise it is diminutive and 

 weakens the statement to " almost " or " barely 

 ■common." " Quite common " is established in 



our literature, is well understood, and I can 

 see no good reason why it should not be re- 

 tained, though I should prefer to use " rather 

 conmion " in its stead. 



Not Uncommon. — This certainly does not 

 in practise equal the same thing as " common " 

 nor does " not common " equal " uncommon." 

 In either pair, one term is passive and the 

 other active. One means a little less than 

 " common " and the other a little more than 

 " uncommon." 



Accidental is not " occasional or rare." The 

 word does not apply to numbers at all, but 

 involves an explanation of a lack of numbers. 

 A storm-blown petrel appears in the Missis- 

 sippi Valley accidentally, Kirtland's warbler 

 is noted there occasionally; both are rare 

 there, but both are not accidental. This is a 

 word to be used with great caution. Except 

 in a few cases, we do not know whether an 

 occurrence is occasional or accidental, and it is 

 much better, unless we know certainly to use 

 the former term, which merely expresses an 

 observed fact, than the latter, which adds a 

 theory to it. 



Very Bare. — As a species can be " com- 

 mon " or " very common " so it can be " rare " 

 or " very rare." The degrees apply to rarity 

 as well as to commonness. 



Scarce. — I can not see that " scarce " has 

 any meaning of diminishment. In general 

 use I think it merely refers to present condi- 

 tions and comes between " common " and 

 " rare." The word to be used in Mr. Kuser's 

 sense is " decreasing," and to be used in its 

 adverbial form in conjunction with other 

 terms of number as " decreasingly common " 

 or " decreasingly scarce." 



Irregular. — This is another word that has 

 no quantitative meaning, but deals with the 

 constancy or inconstancy of the numerical 

 status. It can be used adverbially with other 

 terms as " irregularly common." 



It is easy enough to criticize others' work 

 and with the certainty that they will find it 

 equally simple to criticize mine I here offer 

 an alternate scale of terms and definitions 

 that seems to me a little more satisfactory, as 

 it agrees with general practise and overcomes 



