842 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. HI. No. 75, 



ject of the relationships of vai-ious groups of 

 birds. ' If it is to be inferred from this that the 

 Committee propose to adopt and print the classi- 

 fication of American birds in the various issues 

 of the future Check Lists, that has just appeared 

 in the last edition of that work, until such time 

 as the relationship of the various groups of 

 birds is settled, then I would most emphatically 

 suggest that the idea of presenting a classifica- 

 tion at all be at once abandoned and, for the 

 ' convenience of correspondence between col- 

 lectors,' simply print a ' list ' of American birds, 

 duly numbered in orderly sequence. 



We might even carry the matter still further, 

 and, as the scientific names of the birds are an 

 abomination to the vast majority of ' collectors,' 

 a ' list ' of the vernacular names alone might be 

 given, and these made alphabetical and duly 

 ' numbered in orderly sequence. ' What a sim- 

 ple science ornithology would become, and how 

 convenient for the collector ! 



Now that Dr. Allen has had so much to say 

 in his review about my ' presumptuous critic- 

 ism,' and has totally ignored all the main 

 points of my article in The American Naturalist, 

 I should like to propose to him and to the A. O. 

 U. Committee a few questions in reference to 

 what we find in the new check list. I very 

 much doubt their ability to answer them. 



1. Upon what grounds are the Great Auk 

 {Plautus impennis) and the Labrador Duck 

 {Camptolaimus labradoriiis), both now admitted 

 by the Committee to be extinct, retained in a list 

 of existing North American birds ? 



2. Upon what grounds is Crecoides osbornii 

 omitted from the List of Fossil Birds? (See 

 Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc, v. xxx., p. 125.) 



3. What consistency is there in admitting 

 Piranga ruhiceps to the list, and excluding (for 

 one example among many) Gubernatrix crista- 

 tellus 9 [As the normal habitat of P. rubiceps 

 is certain high altitudes of a few localities 

 in Colombia and Ecuador (the species not 

 even occurring upon the Isthmus of Pan- 

 ama, it would seem that Dr. Allen's com- 

 ments on Gubernatrix cristatellus might, with 

 equal consistency, be applied to it. Of the lat- 

 ter species he has said, "Its habitat being 

 Brazil, it seems beyond probability that it could 

 have reached the locality of its capture with- 



out human aid." (Bull. N. O. C, Vol. V.,. 

 p. 240.)]. 



4. Upon what grounds are the Grebes (Podi- 

 cipidfe) made to occupy a sub-order by them- 

 selves, and the Loons {Urinatoridas) and Auks 

 (Alcidse) another and separate sub-order? 



5. What have the Goat-suckers {Caprimulgi)- 

 and the Humming-birds (Trochili) in common, 

 that they should be placed in the same order? 



When Dr. Allen answers these questions sat- 

 isfactorily to the many inquiring ornithologists- 

 the world over, and can prove consistency in 

 their premises, then I shall believe my article 

 in The American Naturalist to have been ' pre- 

 sumptuous, ' but not before. 



E. W. Shufeldt. 



The foregoing rejoinder by Dr. Shufeldt to- 

 my review of his paper on the A. O. U. Check- 

 List of North American Birds requires no com- 

 ment from me as regards his article in general,, 

 as I do not recognize that he has scored any 

 points worthy of notice; the series of four ques- 

 tions he asks at its close may be considered as 

 demanding some attention. In regard to the 

 article referred to by Dr. Shufeldt in The Ni- 

 dologist, the leading points made by the writer 

 thereof are not well taken, as will doubtless 

 be shown in a future number of that journal. 

 To place emphasis on the presence of two typo- 

 graphical errors — the extent apparently of 

 their discoveries in this direction — as both 

 writers have done, is rather a compliment than 

 otherwise to the Committee. 



1. The Great Auk and the Labrador Duck. 

 Dr. Shufeldt raised the same issue in his orig- 

 inal paper, but it did not seem necessary to- 

 take up the space of Science to discuss it. 

 Both species are practically members of the 

 present fauna, as distinguished from ' fossil 

 birds,' commonly so called, the former living 

 till about the middle of the present century 

 (specimens were taken as late at least as 1844), 

 and the latter till at least 1875, or till withia 

 twenty years, and not a few ornithologists be- 

 lieve that some may still exist. Both species 

 are still retained in all recent manuals and 

 general works on North American birds as- 

 properly ' North American Birds ' in the sense 

 of the Check List. 



