June 4, 1897.] 



SCIENCE. 



879 



fully segregated species; trinomial names and 

 forms known or supposed to intergrade, to in- 

 cipient species or geographical forms, to species 

 still in process of evolution. As said by the 

 present writer some j'ears ago {Auk, I., 1S84, 

 201): "It hence follows that the terms species 

 and varieties' [or subspecies] are not inter- 

 changeable at will, but expressions for certain 

 definite and known facts in nature, grounded 

 on a philosophic principle, to ignore which is 

 not only unscientific, but is to deprive us of a 

 means of precise definition at a point where 

 precision is of high importance." 



It thus seems to me better to maintain our 

 theoretically hard-and-fast standard for regu- 

 lating the status of closely related forms than to 

 adopt so elastic and unphilosophic a basis, and 

 one withal so eminently open to the influence 

 of personal equation, as the 'degree of difference' 

 criterion must inevitably be, and allow time and 

 research to correct the lapses that may occur 

 under our present system. 



J. A. Allen. 



To THE Editor of Science: I have been 

 greatly interested in Dr. Merriam's article as to 

 discriminating between species and sub-species. 

 With his main thesis I entirely agree. I think 

 that the word ' species ' should express degree 

 of differentiation rather than intergradation. 

 I am not quite at one with Dr. Merriam, how- 

 ever, on the question as to how great the 

 degree of differentiation should be in order to 

 establish specific rank. I understand entirely 

 that in some groups the species may be far 

 more closely related than in others, and I sup- 

 pose I may as well confess that I have certain 

 conservative instincts wJiich are jarred when 

 an old familiar friend is suddenly cut up into 

 eleven brand new acquaintances. I think he 

 misunderstands my position, however, when 

 he says, " Why should we try to unite different 

 species under common names?" He here as- 

 sumes, just as if he were a naturalist of eighty 

 years ago, that a ' species ' is always something 

 different by its very nature from all other 

 species; whereas the facts are that species, ac- 

 cording to his own showing in the beginning of 

 his article, are merely more or less arbitrary 

 divisions established for convenience's sake by 



ourselves, between one form and its ancestral 

 and related forms. 



I believe that with fuller material Dr. Mer- 

 riam could go on creating new ' species ' in 

 groups like the bears, wolves and coyotes until 

 he would himself find that he would have to 

 begin to group them together after the manner 

 of the abhorred 'lumpers.' His tendency to 

 discover a new species is shown by the allusion 

 in the last part of his article to the ' unknown 

 form of wapiti,' which has been exterminated 

 from the Allegheny country. The wapiti was 

 formerly found in the Allegheny regions; there 

 it was beyond a doubt essentially the same 

 animal that is now found in the Rockies. 

 Probably it agreed more closely with the wapiti 

 of Minnesota, which still here and there sur- 

 vives, than the latter does with those of Oregon. 

 It may have been slightly different, just as 

 very possibly a minute study of wapiti from 

 the far south, the far north, the dry plains, the 

 high mountains and the wet Pacific forests 

 might show that there were a number of what 

 Dr. Merriam would call ' species ' of wapiti. 

 If this showing were made, the fact would be 

 very interesting and important; but I think it 

 would be merely cumbrous to lumber up our 

 zoological works by giving names to all as ' new 

 species. ' It is not the minor differences among 

 wapiti, but their essential likenesses, that is 

 important. 



So with the wolves. Dr. Merriam has shown 

 that there are different forms of wolf and coy- 

 ote in man5' different parts of the country. 

 When he gets a fuller collection I am quite 

 sure he will find a still larger number of differ- 

 ences and he can add to the already extensive 

 assortment of new species. Now, as I have 

 said before, it is a very important and useful 

 work to show that these differences exist, but I 

 think it is only a darkening of wisdom to insist 

 upon treating them all as a new species. Among 

 ordinary American bipeds, the Kentuckian, the 

 New Englauder of the sea coast, the Oregonian, 

 the Arizouian, all have characteristics which 

 separate them quite as markedly from one an- 

 other as some of Dr. Merriam's bears and 

 coyotes are separated ; and I should just as 

 soon think of establishing a species in the one 

 case as in the other. 



