Nov., 1918 



COMMUNICATION 



215 



should do the same, and in accepting hypo- 

 theses as established facts, copy authority 

 not wisely but too well. This evil cannot be 

 corrected until the leaders set the example, 

 and by their practice put the seal of ap- 

 proval upon a system that can be followed 

 by all without drawing invidious distinction. 

 The system under discussion meets these 

 requirements. 



"The startling innovation in style," of 

 which Mr. Swarth complains, is really no in- 

 novation, as it was used by Stone and Cram 

 in their American Animals in 1902. Mr. 

 Swarth does not imply that it is fundament- 

 ally or scientifically wrong, nor probably 

 would he admit that innovations are to be 

 deprecated, if sufficient reason can be ad- 

 vanced for their adoption. This I have at- 

 tempted to do. 



The English name that accompanies the 

 binomial in the lists under discussion, is 

 the specific one, and not that of the east- 

 ern variety. Mr. Swarth is justified per- 

 haps in being a little uncertain on this point, 

 as the A. O. U. Check-List and current prac- 

 tice has in many cases applied this name to 

 one of the component parts of the species. 

 Even this sanction, however, does not make 

 the practice correct. Certainly Cassin's 

 Vireo is just as much entitled to the name 

 Solitary Vireo as the eastern race is. The 

 latter can claim title to the term Blue- 

 headed Vireo, or anything else that can be 

 agreed upon. Other species show the incor- 

 rect practice of the A. O. U. Check-List 

 more clearly than this one does. Thus, the 

 term American Robin obviously applies to 

 all the races of the species, the A. O. U. 

 Check-List to the contrary notwithstanding; 

 whilst the race so designated at present re- 

 quires a qualified term like Eastern Robin 

 to differentiate it -from the Western or the 

 Southern forms. The part should not limit 

 to itself the name of the whole. A system 

 like the one under discussion, requires the 

 correction of all of these misapplications of 

 specific terms to racial parts. 



While agreeing with Mr. Swarth as to the 

 necessity of recognizing and studying sub- 

 species and their distribution, I cannot but 

 feel that the subject has been given an un- 

 due importance in American ornithological 

 presentations. Subspecific differentiation 

 is but a part of the study of ornithology, 

 not its end and object. We are today suf- 

 fering not only from what Dr. Dwight calls 

 an "indigestion of names" but also, to use 

 another term from the pen of the same apt 

 phrase-maker, from the "exaltation of the 

 subspecies". The subspecies, as a taxono- 



mic division, is decidedly secondary to the 

 species in importance. Though through ge- 

 ological time the species is a variable and 

 uncertain quantity, at any one moment or 

 on any given geological horizon, it is prac- 

 tically a fixed quantity. Orders, genera and 

 families are but conventional groupings of 

 lower units merging into each other, with 

 boundaries set by individual and varying 

 opinions of expediency. Subspecies are 

 also hazy in their outlines, and, within their 

 specific limitations, blend together with ar- 

 bitrary separations. As far as individual 

 human experience is concerned, species are 

 comparatively fixed quantities, and are the 

 only approximately definite and stable units 

 of taxonomic measurement with which the 

 zoologist deals. However, so closely has 

 the lesser hazy division (subspecies) been 

 examined, that it has seemed to occupy most 

 of the horizon, and obscured the greater 

 specific fact. The binomial method of 

 heading corrects this distorted perspective, 

 and by presenting the proper relationships 

 visually, tends to restore them to their 

 proper proportions in public concept. It 

 does this, in spite of Mr. Swarth's com- 

 plaints to the contrary, without loss of de- 

 finiteness, for the writer can be as min- 

 utely accurate as he cares to be. The 

 vagueness to which he objects is purely per- 

 sonal to the writer and these special pa- 

 pers, and are not inherent in the system. 

 The system and the writer are two separate 

 subjects, and each should be judged upon 

 its own merits. 



"In many cases," Mr. Swarth says, "where 

 he has evidently made up his mind as to 

 the subspecies represented, there seems to 

 be no good reason why the proper subspe- 

 cific name should not be placed plainly as 

 a heading." The contrary method was fol- 

 lowed for the sake of consistency, to illus- 

 trate the flexibility of the system, and as an 

 example. Liberties may be taken with an 

 established and recognized system, but 

 when under demonstration it should be fol- 

 lowed to its logical conclusion, and tested 

 for all cases. 



The "atmosphere of vagueness and un- 

 certainty" that Mr. Swarth finds in the pa- 

 pers in question, is understandable. One of 

 the features of current practice is that we 

 treat with finality and definiteness subspe- 

 cific phenomena that are essentially vague 

 and uncertain. Reading over various lists 

 and descriptions, there is little or no indi- 

 cation given that many of the subspecific 

 generalizations treated with dogmatic as- 

 sertion, are after all but the expression of 



