ZOOLOGY. : 303 
though misdirected zeal of a young naturalist, instead of commis- 
eration for an “ ornithological blunder,” and they include nothing 
that might not properly be said in the presence of the person criti- 
cised, and, now as “ Bonasa Jobsii” is a thing of the past let us 
hope to hear no more of it; and that any reply to the foregoing will 
be confined to the question of scientific ethics and the limits of 
kindly criticism.—Burr S. Witper, Cornell University. 
ORNITHOLOGICAL Brunpers.—In the March number of the 
NATURALIST occur some remarks respecting “An Ornithological 
Blunder.” Such a gross mistake as that made in the case of 
“ Bonasa Jobsii” certainly demanded vigorous criticism; yet are 
there not palliating circurstances attending this ‘blunder ” that 
render the language of your correspondent’s critique unnecessarily 
arsh? To me it seems that there are. Unquestionably þad as 
was the work your correspondent was called to pass upon the 
indiseretion here alluded to was evidently encouraged, if not 
indeed actually induced, by equally unfortunate “blunders” pre- 
Viously made, not by mere tyros, but by recognized ornithological 
authorities. That this was the case seems evident from the 
Comparisons and precedents cited in the remarks accompanying 
the description of Bonasa Jobsii. Is not, in fact, Bonasa Jobsii 
one of the legitimate fruits of the excessively analytic system 
followed in the only general works on North American ornithology 
Accessible to students? The authors of these valuable works may 
have modified their opinions, and even their methods of working 
Since the publication of those works, but as yet the general student 
as no means of knowing it. It seems to me that as long as spe- 
“les NO more worthy of recognition than Bonasa Jobsii have the 
appearance of being currently accepted, because not yet publicly 
retracted, mistakes like that made by Mr. Jaycox need not 
upon as wholly unpardonable. In fact if the author of 
B. Jobsii could have truthfully added, Hab. “ Columbia River,” or, 
“Hudson’s Bay Territory,” to his description, his pseudo-species 
might even now have been less summarily dealt with though none 
the less untenable, By these remarks, however, I do not by any 
means wish to encourage such kind of work, but merely desiré to 
‘eal attention to the fact that in Mr. J aycox’s case there are exten- 
circumstances. — ttt : 
[We gladly make room for the above, from Prof. Wilder and 
