554 COLOR AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF BIRDS. 
year) no doubt justifies his lack of recollection as to how he got 
the idea. 
The statement in regard to Cardinalis is erroneous in several 
respects: first, I did not make “ a new Mexican variety, carneus, 
of Cardinalis virginianus,” but gave the synonymy of that pre- 
viously named race, citing Lesson first, and Bonaparte’s Con- 
spectus next, as authorities for the name, which I merely reduced 
to the rank of a race. The new race which I characterized was 
coccineus Ridgway, from eastern Mexico, while carneus Lesson 
was from the western coast. In reducing C. igneus of Baird to a 
._ variety, I did not follow ‘‘a previous writer ” (Key, p. 151 cited) 
since, as explained further on, I had not seen the “Key” until after 
the printing of my paper. 
In the case of the western forms of Cyanura I am perfectly wil- 
ling to renounce all claims to originality, for if my method of 
treating them contributes to the better understanding of the rela- 
tion which they bear to each other, my aim is accomplished. 
So far as Dr. Coues’ “ Key” is concerned in the matter of no- 
menclature, it must in this instance be ignored, as the following 
facts justify : Though the ‘‘ Key” was published in October (1872) 
and my papers not until December and January following, yet I 
never saw the pages of that work until after the issuing of my 
papers, which were written and forwarded to the publishers the 
preceding July or August, at which time I had not seen the “ Key ” 
at all. Even had I seen and been perfectly familiar with its pages, 
I could still claim with perfect right, for reasons stated farther on, 
originality for the nomenclature which I used. 
And now, having justified myself in regard to the relation which 
my paper held to previous publications in specific points, let me 
say a few words in its defence on general principles. From the 
time when its preparation was first discussed in my mind to the 
time of its publication, the question never once occurred to me 
whether the laws which I endeavored to explain were my own dis- 
coveries, or whether their discovery was the property of others. 
I took it for granted, that the subject and its general principles 
were so familiar that a preliminary review of its literature would 
be a superfluous addition to a paper already overburdened with 
references —of which, very singularly, my reviewer complains. of 
a meagreness. My only view was to begin at once with these 
laws, state as precisely and briefly as possible what their prin- 
