70 R- W. SHUFELDT. 



with their nearest allies" ^. The scientific value of such 

 species (?) can only be very questionable at the best, and the 

 elevation to a separate distinctive rank of such intimately rela- 

 ted creatures can not be considered as helpful or beneficial to 

 Mammalogical Science. It can be safely asserted that there is 

 hardly a genus of North American Mammals that does not con- 

 tain too many forms, and that the science would be benefited 

 if a considerable number were relegated to their proper place 

 among the synonyms". 



The complaint Mr. Elliot makes here is, without doubt, 

 well-founded, but is is a difficult matter to apply his remedy. 

 It is extremely difficult to know where to draw the fine, although 

 it is very evident, upon the other hand, that in the case of a 

 certain school of mammalogists in this country the refinements 

 of species and subspecies making has, with some mammals, 

 been carried altogether too far. Indeed, we are almost led to 

 doubt, and with justice, that they appreciate the operation of 

 the law of organic evolution; the matter of color variation in 

 very closely allied forms of mammals; and, the value to be 

 placed upon skeletal and dental variations within the species. 

 To apply the laws of natural classification to mice and ground 

 squirrels presents precisely the same difficulties as the ones en- 

 countered when we come to apply those same laws to classify 

 the representatives of the genus Homo. 



We find no trouble in drawing specific lines in the case 

 of an Esquimaux and a Congo negro, but where are we to draw 

 the correct subspecific lines among the commingled white races 

 spread over the continent of Europe and elsewhere? But this 

 is altogether too extensive a subject to discuss in this place, as 

 it would be impossible to give it that full attention that its high 

 importance demands. Moreover, I can afford to shirk any such 

 responsibility here, as my classification of the Mammalia, given 



1 Bailey: Revision of N. Amer. Faun. No. 17, p. 14. 



