June 5, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



84'3 



2. Crecoides osbornii Shufeldt. This was 

 omitted simply because it was accidentally 

 overlooked. 



3. Piranga ' rubiceps ' = rubriceps. If Dr. 

 Shufeldt makes no protest against Icterus icterus 

 and Spinus notatus, admitted to the list on 

 Audubon's authority, he should not object to 

 the case of Piranga rubriceps, the geographical 

 conditions being similar. So far as known, P. 

 rubriceps is not kept as a cage bird ; certainly it 

 is not one of the commoner cage birds of our 

 bird stores, as is Gubernatrix cristaiellus. Many 

 of the common cage birds escape from confine- 

 ment and are afterwards captured, perhaps 

 after a considerable interval of freedom, and 

 showing very few, if any, traces of previous 

 confinement. Among them are finches, par- 

 rots, and parrakeets from Africa, India, 

 Australia and tropical America. Their cap- 

 ture may be recorded as a matter of interest, 

 but no one considers it admissible to include 

 such species in the list of North American birds. 

 On the other hand, wild birds either wander or 

 are carried by storms hundreds and even thous- 

 ands of miles beyond their usual range, and are 

 captured under circumstances which preclude 

 the supposition of their being escaped cage 

 birds, as in the case of many European strag- 

 glers that have occurred once, or a few times in 

 North America. To this class of waifs belongs 

 Piranga rubriceps. 



4 and 5. Regarding the relationships of the 

 Grebes, Loons, Auks, etc., probably if the A. 

 O. U. Committee were to revise its classifica- 

 tion they would make some changes in respect 

 to the position of these groups ; but, for reasons 

 given in my former letter (Science, N. S. , No. 

 73, May 22, 1896), the Committee did not con- 

 sider it advisable to transpose any of the higher 

 groups. But the Committee doubtless would 

 not follow Dr. Shufeldt in removing the Owls 

 from the Acciptires to place them with or near 

 the Goatsuckers. J. A. Allen. 



'the polae haees of eastern north 



america.' — an answer to dr. c. h. 



merriam's criticisms. 



To the Editor op Science: Dr. C. Hart 



Merriam has seen fit to devote nearly two pages 



of Science* to my preliminary paper on the 

 ' Polar Hares of Eastern North America. ' 



It is diflB.cult to ascertain the motive which 

 prompted this review of my preliminary work 

 on the Polar Hares, the mature results of which 

 I expressly stated in the American Naturalist,\ 

 ' would soon be published in the form of a. com- 

 pendious revision of the New World represen- 

 tatives of the Lepus timidus group. The im- 

 portance which Dr. Merriam seems to attach to 

 the paper in question, by devoting thereto three 

 times the space taken by his succeeding review 

 of Sclater and Thomas' new ' Book of Ante- 

 lopes,' together with the suprising attitude 

 taken on certain questions of nomenclature and 

 diagnostic technique, demand a rejoinder. 



"Waiving the objections made to my reestab- 

 lishment of the specific distinction of the Amer- 

 ican from the European Polar Hare, and my re- 

 restriction of the type locality of the latter to 

 southern Sweden, let us consider Dr. Merriam's 

 position regarding my adoption of the name 

 arcticus of Ross for the Baffin Land Hare instead 

 of glacialis of Leach, which comes nineteen pages 

 later in the same book. In the absence of any 

 statement to the contrary, I XJroceed on the 

 supposition that Dr. Merriam still agrees with 

 me in taking the Code of Nomenclature of the 

 American Ornithologists' Union for authority in 

 a case of this kind. 



His main objections to the use of the name 

 Lepus arcticus 'Leach,' Ross, are : 



(1) ' ' Capt. Ross was not a naturalist and 

 made no claim to technical knowledge of zool- 

 ogy." 



(2) ' ' All that he [Ross] knew of the animal 

 came from Leach." 



(3) ' ' Ten persons have used the name arcticus, 

 while thirty-six have used the name glacialis." 



(4) ' ' Irrespective of the merits of the two 

 names, glacialis 'would have to be taken if we 

 accept the rule that in cases of names of equal 

 pertinency, the first reviser of the group has the 

 privilege of fixing the name. ' ' 



The first objection only begs the question. 

 The rules of nomenclature no longer attempt to 

 define what should constitute the standard of 

 authorship, contenting themselves in such a 



* Friday, April 10, 1896, pp. 564, 565. 



t March, 1896, p. 256. 



