Editorials 



39 



surveys in 1850 brought considerable col- 

 lections of birds from the western United 

 States, that we learned that many birds of 

 the more arid west were decidedly different 

 from their representatives in the more humid 

 east. In most instances of this kind we at 

 first had only two forms, an eastern and a 

 western, but subsequent exploration added 

 to the material available for study, and it 

 was discovered that every region possess- 

 ing marked physiographic and climatic 

 characters had races peculiar to itself, and 

 for the first time the laws of geographic va- 

 riation, or of evolution by environment, be- 

 came evident. This is one of ornithology's 

 most valuable contributions to philosophic 

 natural history; an epoch-making discovery 

 the practical application of which, in the 

 vain attempt to definitely name the indefi- 

 nite, has led us into our present difficulties. 



Thus it has happened that of the 1,068 

 birds included in the 1895 edition of the 

 A. O. U. 'Check-List,' 300 are ranked as 

 subspecies, or, in other words, a subspecies 

 for every two and a half species. But the 

 end is not yet. Since 1895, over seventy 

 so-called ' new ' forms have been described 

 and with each fresh revision of a variable 

 group the ' splitting ' becomes finer and we 

 are afflicted with added names the applica- 

 tion of which is doubtful. As a matter of 

 fact, specimens are no longer separated from 

 specimens, but series of specimens from 

 series of specimens, and herein lies the evil 

 of splitting as it is at present practiced. 



We have long passed the stage in our 

 study of the climatic variations of North 

 American birds, when we should expect to 

 discover a subspecies so marked that its 

 characters would be convincing in a single 

 specimen. In fact, large series are usually 

 necessary to make apparent the differences 

 on which it is proposed to separate one bird 

 from another. Placed side by side, it be- 

 comes evident that one row of birds, as a 

 ronu, is more or less unlike the other row, and 

 the cumulative differences of perhaps thirty 

 birds are, in describing such forms, as- 

 cribed to one, whereas, to a degree, in re- 

 solving the series of thirty birds into its 

 component individuals, the value of the 

 characters attributed to the new form are 



in effect divided by thirty, that is, theoreti- 

 cally, are evenly distributed among the 

 thirty birds of the series. The probabili- 

 ties are, of course, against so even a divi- 

 sion of differences, but the series will, un- 

 doubtedly, contain birds in which the char- 

 acters attributed to the form are almost 

 wholly wanting. A case in point is fur- 

 nished by an ambitious splitter, who admits 

 that a series of thirty-six specimens " barely 

 suggested" differences, on which, however, 

 with the assistance of eleven additional 

 specimens, he proposes to found a new 

 subspecies! Now, while we cannot over- 

 estimate the importance of determining with 

 the utmost exactness the geographic varia- 

 tions of birds in further elucidating the 

 laws of evolution by environment, we 

 maintain that the recognition by name 

 of such minute and inconstant differences 

 as we have indicated is a perversion of 

 the uses of zoological nomenclature and a 

 menace to the best interests of ornithology. 



The layman, whether or not he is in- 

 clined to sneer at the closet naturalist, bows 

 to his authority and accepts without ques- 

 tion his ruling, whether it be a new name 

 or a new nomenclature. But if we do not 

 mistake the signs the lay ornithologist has 

 become so confused in a vain effort to keep 

 pace with the innovations of the profes- 

 sional, that he is on the border of revolt 

 against what, in the main, he esteems to be 

 a needless juggling with names. 



Fortunately, there is a court to which we 

 may appeal in this difficulty. The Ameri- 

 can Ornithologists' Union, appreciating the 

 need of revision of the work of too enthu- 

 siastic systematists, has a standing com- 

 mittee, whose duty it is to pass on the species 

 and subspecies of North American birds, 

 which have been described since its last 

 meeting, with the laudable object of ex- 

 cluding those which seem unworthy of rec- 

 ognition by name. We appeal, then, to 

 this committee to protect us from the undue 

 development of a practice which is bringing 

 systematic ornithology and some systematic 

 ornithologists into disrepute and, by ren- 

 dering accurate identification impossible, 

 proving a needless source of discouragement 

 to students of birds. 



