THE NIDOLOGIST gl 
Thoughts on the New Check-List. 
THE appearance of this expected work was wel- 
comed by perhaps all Ornithologists as the crowning 
effort of an organized endeavor that has done so 
much to place American Ornithology on a sure and 
firm basis. To those who study birds occasionally as 
a pastime or hobby, and they far outnumber the 
really scientific students, it and its predecessor have 
presented a fixity of names which to those not in 
touch with the higher lights of the science, or en- 
dowed with the faculty of remembering or noting the 
many changes to which scientific nomenclature is 
prone, has afforded a sure basis from which to associate 
and recall the incidents and experiences with which 
they delight to regale and instruct themselves and 
others. 
Comprehensive in plan and admirable in typo- 
graphic execution as this work is, it yet presents some 
failings which in this era of free criticism one may 
perhaps be allowed to at least point out and to some 
extent also question. The book is ostensibly the 
compilation of a committee of five well-known gentle- 
men who in it acknowledge their indebtedness for as- 
sistance rendered by six other Ornithologists equally 
or nearly as well known. If this volume had had an 
editor-in-chief, instead of the noble array of talent 
mentioned, one would not necessarily feel at all 
backward about one’s action in even remotely 
advancing evidence, in effect suggesting that an 
addenda to the book would be useful, in fact, neces- 
sary. 
Typographical errors are few. That Greenland, on 
page 321, should be spelled with three e's, and that the 
word *‘ probably,” on page 221, should have two p’s, are 
doubtless due to the incorrigibility of the printer, and 
surely could not have been overlooked by the learned ar- 
ray of proof readers associated with this work. Another 
and a larger series of vexatious misplacements, are 
shown by a careful comparison of the absence or 
presence of marks of parentheses in connection 
with the name of the authority for the specific or 
subspecific name. ‘ The rule is to inclose the ab- 
breviated name of the authority in parentheses 
when it is not also the authority for the first 
use of the name as adopted by the committee. 
No. 675@ is a case where the parentheses should 
be removed. No. 211a@ is a case where they should 
be inserted. No. 706 is a similar case, and there 
are several others. No. 13@ is an example where 
one is tempted to ask who really described the 
name of the bird in question. The usual practice 
certainly does not obtain in this instance. In 
another example, No. 7662, the Ornithological tyro 
will doubtless be mystified as to the course of 
reasoning that put (Swains.) as the authority for the 
name of this bird as adopted by the committee. 
Nothing appears below it to sustain the alleged 
authority. The date 1884 is certainly erroneous. I 
must also confess my inability to decide by the Check- 
Listas to who first formed the name Ral/us jamaicensis. 
Linn. is given under the subgenus Creci#scus, while 
Gmel. is given a few lines below. The question is 
submitted for examination and elucidation by the 
““wise men.” No. 567d was described as a species by 
Mr. Loomis and was changed to a subspecies by the 
committee in the Aw for January, 1894, page 47. 
To be consistent, a line should be added crediting the 
A. O. U. supplement of that date with the change of 
name, also inclosing the authority, Loomis, in paren- 
theses. This has been done in several precisely 
similar cases, for instance, No. 740a. As no one has 
proved intergradation of this form with hyemalis why 
may not the committee be wrong altogether and Mr. 
Loomis right ? 
In the Zis¢ of 1886 the committee permitted the 
introduction of manuscript names as authoritative. In 
the Zist of 1895 this action is reversed, and no such 
names, except through oversight, are now allowed. 
This change by the committee is hardly well taken, is 
unscientific, and considerable might be said in objec- 
tion. I take it that when an author accepts a manu- 
script name he thereby gives up all claim to it him- 
self. Can the committee force him, whether he will or 
not, to accept the credit which he has willingly given to 
another and whom he has thereby acknowledged to 
be the real discoverer and namer of the new form in 
question? One effect has been to make a certain 
author name a new bird in honor of himself, which, 
of course, never was intended. Another effect in one 
case has been to give a manuscript name to a bird 
without even the hint of a description being found in 
the record of the citation given. Parus gambeli, a 
new name, was furnished the committee in manu- 
the Zis¢ of 1886. Now, in 1895 they quote this Zis¢ of 
script by Mr. Ridgway, and was inserted by them in 
1886 as authority and first published use of the name, 
ignoring completely the lack of a description, and 
also the fact that it is only a manuscript name. To 
be consistent in their practice the Zis¢ itself or the 
committee should be given as authority for the name. 
But in fact both are wrong, as a description occurs 
on page 562 of the Manual of 1887, where the name is 
perhaps first properly used. Canons XXXII, XXXIV, 
and XLI of the code apply with full force to this 
case. It might also be in order to suggest that, inas- 
much as the committee have in this Z7s¢ reversed 
their former course of procedure on this subject, it 
would have been as well to have inserted a statement 
of their intention or reasons for doing so in the 
Preface to the present volume. The book will be 
used by many who will doubtless be puzzled to ac- 
count for such a radical change, and who will, on 
account of their location, be unable to discover the 
reasons therefor. - 
In No. 320, page 122, we have an interesting case 
from several points of view. The North American 
continental bird so long known as Columbigallina 
passerina was finally, after some treatment by Mr. 
Maynard, which has been set aside, renamed by 
Mr. Chapman as Columbigallina passerina terrestris. 
In his paper Mr. Chapman distinctly states that his 
name is intended to apply to the resident continental 
bird. Now Mr. Chapman tells us that the Jamaica 
bird, which is different, was the bird which Linnzus 
called Columba passerina. The committee adopts these 
views of Mr. Chapman by adopting his name. If 
then these gentlemen are right, how can Columba 
passerina be the original name from which to cite the 
name Columbigallina passerina terrestris? Yet this 
is what the committee does. If Linnzeus described a 
continental bird, then Mr. Chapman and the com- 
mittee are wrong. If Linnzus described a Jamaica 
bird, then Mr. Chapman is right in giving a new 
name, but the committee is also again wrong. There 
is nothing more different in the conditions in this 
case than appears in, for instance, No. 360a, and the 
treatment should be precisely the same. The geo- 
graphical distribution as given for this bird is mislead- 
ing. If the bird of the Southeastern States is distinct 
from its insular relatives, then it should most certainly 
have a different name. If it does not and cannot 
intergrade, then the name should be a specific one, 
and the bird should stand as Columbigallina terrestris 
(Chapm.). WILLIAM PALMER. 
(70 be continued.) 
