384 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XVI. No. 401. 



of new trinomial names ' to our already over- 

 burdened nomenclature.' Mr. Clark has done 

 good work in certain ornithological lines, for 

 which he deserves due credit, but his labors, 

 so far as his published writings show, have 

 been quite foreign to the subject upon which 

 he here descants with the confidence becoming 

 only to an expert. His statements and point 

 of view, however, show lack of experience and 

 familiarity with such lines of research as are 

 involved in the consideration of trinomials 

 and ' so-called species and subspecies.' Evi- 

 dently he has never attempted to analyze and 

 classify 2,150 specimens of larks, or of any 

 similar varied and widely distributed group. 



I am not writing to defend the work of Mr. 

 Oberholser or of Dr. Mearns, which Mr. Clark 

 has chosen as a subject for comment; nor 

 to approve of the tendency of fine splitting 

 now so much in vogue in certain quarters ; but 

 to correct certain unwarranted impressions 

 that the lay reader may derive from Mr. 

 Clark's statements and criticisms. Mr. Clark 

 says : " The important question which this 

 (Mr. Oberholser's) monograph raises is how 

 far is it desirable to recognize these varieties 

 (of larks) by name? Or better, are the diver- 

 sities of size and color in a specified geograph- 

 ical area, sufiiciently constant to warrant 

 recognition as subspecies?" These are old 

 questions, already many times discussed. The 

 first question of ' how far,' etc., will ever be a 

 matter of personal equation and temperament; 

 in reply no hard-and-fast line can be laid down ; 

 so long as there are ultraists and conservatives, 

 so long will there be ' splitters ' and ' lumpers.' 

 To the second question only an emphatic yes 

 is admissible; and in Mr. Clark's contention 

 to the contrary he affords conclusive evidence 

 that he is writing without possessing that 

 familiarity with the facts of the case which 

 can only be attained by long experience in a 

 field which is yet obviously little known to 

 him. This is evidenced by the following, 

 among other statements he makes : " To many 

 persons it would seem to be almost an axiom 

 that a character which can not be stated in 

 language or in figures of any sort is not suffi- 

 ciently conspicuous to bear the weight of a 

 name." "Another rule which to the layman 



would seem to be axiomatic is that characters 

 which can not be recognized regardless of the 

 locality where the specimens are collected are 

 worthless." This is naturally the layman's, 

 view of the case, but what are the facts, as 

 known to the expert? 



In ornithology, and especially in mamma- 

 logy, perfectly ' good species ' are often so 

 similar in size and color that even the expert 

 cannot satisfactorily identify them from de- 

 scriptions, and hence, almost from time im- 

 memorial, direct comparison with authentic 

 material has been necessary in order to settle 

 such difficult cases. As all experts in this 

 line of study well know, forms that may be 

 indistinguishable by descriptions are, when 

 brought together, and especially when series 

 are compared, so noticeably different that 

 there is no trouble in distinguishing them at 

 a glance. They present to the eye differences 

 that are sufficiently impressive but which, ow- 

 ing to the imperfection of descriptive terms, 

 cannot be adequately expressed in keys or in 

 diagnoses. Hence when new material comes to 

 hand from localities the fauna of which is as 

 yet imperfectly known, the expert feels com- 

 pelled, in a greater or less number of instances, 

 to appeal to his confreres for the loan of 

 authentic representative specimens of the de- 

 scribed forms to which his own doubtful speci- 

 mens seem most closely allied. Nor is it any 

 disgrace to the expert, nor any reflection on 

 present-day methods that constant resort has 

 to be made to such aids. 



As Mr. Clark very truly says : " The chief 

 value of systematic zoology lies in its service 

 as a basis for progress in knowledge of the 

 laws of distribution, variation and evolution. 

 Recognition of well-defined subspecies is essen- 

 tial to accurate knowledge, but bestowing 

 names upon all sorts of individual diversities 

 and inconstant trivialities is the very worst 

 extreme." And, after quoting some very 

 ' sensible words ' on this point from Mr. Ober- 

 holser's paper, he goes on to ask " * * * but 

 can degrees of variation be properly set forth 

 if they cannot be ' intelligibly expressed on 

 paper ' ?" We submit that the * layman,' who 

 is naturally so troubled and confused by the 

 modern ways of finding out how and to what 



