1917.] Chapman, Distribution of Bird-life in Colombia. 171 



in a limited number of eases where additional material has led to other 

 conclusions. From the standpoint of nomenclature, pure and simple, I 

 have made no attempt to revise the names they present. 



Treatment of Genera. — I do not approve of the present-day excessive 

 multiplication of genera. I believe that we should treat what we term 

 genera much as we treat species, and when the variations from a given 

 generic type do not result in actual segregation, but simply mark the con- 

 necting stages, then such variations should be considered of subgeneric 

 value. 



We all exhibit a tendency to forget that a genus is, in a large measure, 

 an artificial creation, and that the characters on which it is based are ill- 

 defined, unstandardized, and arbitrarily employed. In the hands of the 

 systematist whose talent, often highly developed for analysis, leads him to 

 magnify the importance of minor characters, classification becomes an end 

 rather than a means. Accepting the doctrine of evolution he nevertheless 

 seems determined to prove the theory of special creation. It is his business 

 to assort, arrange and pigeon-hole certain facts as these facts are repre- 

 sented by specimens. The necessity for drawing up diagnoses, keys and 

 descriptions for the identification of these specimens leads him to search 

 for differences rather than resemblances. To these differences he gives 

 names, and to these names we apparently cannot avoid attributing a signifi- 

 cance they are often far from possessing. As a result, nomenclature over- 

 shadows classification and facts are obscured or wholly disguised by names. 



There is unquestionably urgent need for a thorough generic revision of 

 many groups of South American birds, but the reviser should not feel com- 

 pelled to found a new genus on every species showing a departure from the 

 set of artificial characters he has assigned to the so-called type. Further- 

 more, in order to determine whether the difEerences observed are of generic 

 or subgeneric value, his revision should be based on all, not a part, of the 

 species of the group concerned. 



It was first intended in the preparation of the following list of species 

 collected by us in Colombia, to use currently accepted generic terms, and 

 when recent authorities differed to attempt to reach an independent de- 

 cision based on original investigation. I soon found, however, that the 

 instances in which authorities differ are so numerous, that a proper con- 

 sideration of the points at issue would require both far more time and 

 material than were available, and I was forced to abandon this plan. I 

 have, consequently, followed sometimes one author, sometimes another, 

 and the results here presented I frankly confess to be both inconsistent and 

 unsatisfactory. I feel that there is no hope for uniformity in the treatment 

 of this question of genera, until systematists reach some agreement in 



