THE NIDOLOGIST 103 
valid species, notwithstanding that the former 
completely intergrade while the latter are always 
separated by an appreciable hiatus, two things are 
recognized through the use of trinomial designa- 
tions. First, that distinctness, without regard to 
kind or degree of difference, is indicated by the 
use of a binomial name, while the use of a trino- 
mialimplies known intergradation, notwithstand- 
ing the wide difference which may sometimes 
exist between two or more forms of a conspecific 
group.’”’ Again, he says on the same page: 
“While intergradation, in the case of new germs, 
may be often inferred with a great degree of cer- 
tainty, perhaps fewer retractions will be necessary 
if the use of a trinomial be deferred till satisfac- 
tory evidence of intergradation be acquired.’’ 
Mr. Henry Seebohn, in his ‘‘Geographical Dis- 
tribuution of the Family Charadriide,’’ 1887,page 
64, says in effect the same thing: ‘‘In practice it 
will be found that the most convenient line that 
can be drawn between a species and a subspecies 
is to regard those forms as specifically distinct, 
however near they may be to each other whenever 
they are woz counected by intermediate forms— 
without reference in the one case to Zow the inter- 
mediate forms are produced, or in the other to 
why they were not produced.”’ 
Now if intergradation is not the criterion by 
which to gauge the use oftrinomials,I take it that 
the above is only wasted ink and paper, to say 
nothing of the trouble incurred in writing and 
originatingit. What are the Codeand the Remarks 
for, if not to decide these cases by? 
Parus carolinensis is a geographical race of P. 
atricapilius, asouthern derivative from a boreal 
form. They are not known to intergrade, hence 
are good species. Their habitats, however, at 
some points interlock, but as far as known the 
two forms are now distinct. S?turnella magna 
and S. m. neglecta are on precisely the same foot- 
ing though occupying eastward and westward 
habitats. _Who has collected intermediates of 
these kinds? Who has noted the mixed melody 
of these intergrading birds? Whereis the evi- 
dence on which one is made a subspecies of the 
other? In ‘‘N. A. Fauna, No. 5,’’ Dr. Merriam 
has described a single specimen of an Owl as 
Megascops flameolus idahoensis. The bird is 
unique, distinct from flameolus, and should, to 
be consistent, stand as a species Iegascops idaho- 
ensis until proved to intergrade with another. 
Besides, its locality is about four hundred miles 
from the nearest known habitat of flameo/us and 
intergrades are unknown, in fact are almost 
impossible owing to the character of the interven- 
ing country. 
There are certain North American: birds which 
are in a large degree congereric with certain 
Eurasian forms. Many of these are in the List 
considered as conspecific, notwithstanding the 
distance and oceans which separate them. They 
undoubtedly had a common origin previous to or 
about the time of the glacial epoch, but since that 
time there has been no land connection to enable 
the forms to intergrade. What is therefunscienti- 
fic in allowing the American forms of Certhia to 
stand as species until they are proved to inter- 
grade with each other? Thus Certhia americana, 
‘C. alticola, C. montana, and C. occidentalis. If 
they do intergrade, then they should stand as 
subspecies of americana. Why should we not 
also write Loxta minor and perhaps Loxia strick- 
landi? Why not Pica hudsonica? How can this 
last intergrade with Pica pica? Why will not 
Archibuteo sancti-johannis correctly indicate a 
bird which inhabits nearly the whole of North 
America? It does look as ifa new definition of 
what constitutes a subspecies is in order, or else 
the laws we have should be obeyed. We have a 
Code, a Check List and a Committee. Yet authors 
will persist in absolutely changing names, in 
allowing their own limited experiences to over- 
rule the supposed superior abilities and knowledge 
of the Committee. Even the individual members 
of the Committee persist in using names contrary 
to the rules of the Committee. We laymen like 
to look up to those whom we support as the heads 
of our organization, but we ofteu have our faith 
considerably shaken, 
WILLIAM PALMER. 
“THOUGHTS ON THE NEW CHECK LIST.” 
Yo the Editor of THE N1ipoOLocIst : 
EAR SIR :—‘‘A little learning is a dangerous 
lis. thing.” 
So wrote Alexander Pope over two hundred 
and fifty years ago, and the correctness of the 
statement has been many times demonstrated, and is 
newly evidenced by the article under the above caption 
in THE Nrponocis‘ for April, 1896. 
In the interest of scientific accuracy, it is to be hoped 
that Mr. William Palmer, with his excellent literary 
equipment and extended scientific experience, which 
stand forth so prominently in his article above cited, 
will lose no time in preparing for the benefit alike of 
his scientific confreres and the ‘‘noble array of talent” 
responsible for the New A. O. U. Check List, the full 
and complete ‘‘addenda to the book,’’ which he finds 
is ‘necessary.’ Possibly in the series of papers appar- 
ently to be given under ‘‘Thoughts on the new Check 
List’’ this will be supplied. : 
It is gratifying to know that in a work of this kind 
“*Typograpical errors are few.” Mr. Palmer calls atten- 
tion to two; he may have many more on his list; we 
can supply a limited number which he possibly may 
have overlooked. ‘There are also a number of clerical 
slips,—“‘vexatious misplacemenis’’ of parentheses in 
respect to the names of authorities, etc., of which it is 
intimated there is ‘‘a large series.” But only two are 
here pointed out. In these the criticism is well taken; 
please let us have the rest. I am sure the A. O. U. 
committee will be only too glad to have the errors in its 
work pointed out, and will promptly take steps for their 
correction. 
No. 13a and No. 766a, referred to by Mr. Palmer, 
he will find noticed in ‘‘The Auk”, April 1896, p. 189. 
In the case of ‘“‘Radlus jamaicensis Linn.,’’ Linn. of 
course should read Gmel. There should also have been 
aline added to the reference under No. 740a. 
In his next paragraph about manuscript names, Mr. 
Palmer shows he has waded beyond his depth. 
It seems strange that he should not know that in 
substituting anew name far a preoccupied name that no 
description is necessary. Furthermore, that while 
Parus gambelt was a manuscript name when adopted 
by the committee in 1886, it ceased to be such when 
published in the Check List. The correct citation for 
the new Check List is as there given, and not “‘Ridgw. 
Man. 1887.” Mr. Palmer’s references in this connec- 
tion to Canons XXNIT, XXXIV and XLI would seem 
to indicate that he considers Parus gambeli as nomen 
nudum till published in Ridgway’s ‘*Manual,” over- 
