216 



THE CONDOR 



Vol. XX 



personal opinion upon which no unanimity 

 has been reached, even between acknowl- 

 edged authorities of similar schools of 

 thought. The discrepancies between the 

 findings of the A. O. U. Committee, Ridg- 

 way and some of the Pacific Coast authori- 

 ties, is demonstration enough of this. 

 Phrases such as "much browner", "distinctly 

 larger", or "comparatively longer", abound; 

 yet when demonstrated by specimens, they 

 are often such as can be seen only by the 

 most careful comparison of a large series 

 under special light conditions, and often 

 are only average characters not shared by a 

 majority of the race, and leaving many in- 

 dividual specimens unrecognizable except 

 by geography. Occasionally even, the most 

 characteristically marked members of one 

 form hail from the headquarters of another. 

 Many of these minute differences undoubt- 

 edly exist; some are only recognizable to 

 supernormal perceptions, while others are 

 probably the result of comparing insuffi- 

 cient or uncharacteristic material. The 

 fact that experts of supposedly equal au- 

 thority arrive at opposed conclusions on 

 viewing similar or even identical material, 

 indicates that subspecific determination is 

 not an exact science. Those who do not 

 claim infallibility either in perception or 

 judgment, may well qualify their decisions 

 as personal opinion rather than indisputable 

 facts. 



Mr. Swarth complains of "dribbling pro- 

 tests" and "deprecatory remarks directed 

 against many subspecies now quite univer- 

 sally recognized by bird students". I dare 

 to take exception to the statement regard- 

 ing the universality of the recognition ac- 

 corded many or any of the forms in ques- 

 tion. In fact I venture to state that there 

 are few racial forms that meet with quite 

 universal acceptance. At any rate there 

 have been in the past, and probably still 

 are, many forms that have been generally 

 accepted only because no one seriously 

 questions them. However, the "dribbling- 

 protests" and "deprecatory remarks", inas- 

 much as they are not expressions of mere 

 querulous complaint, but aim to reflect the 

 evidence as it appears to the writer, should 

 add rather than subtract from conclusions, 

 especially when they are contrary to those 

 generally received. Reflecting as they do 

 the basis of the judgment derived from 

 them, they should be preferable to bare dog- 

 matic decisions. In the example quoted by 

 Mr. Swarth, the Goshawk, I stated all that 

 I was justified in assuming, i. e., that young 

 birds are more coarsely vermiculated than 



older ones. The facts are, that in a con- 

 siderable series of these birds, all specimens 

 with any remnants of striped juvenility in 

 their plumage are, irrespective of geogra- 

 phy, coarsely marked on the breast. I 

 thought this was suggestive enough to men- 

 tion, as explanation of my refusal to recog- 

 nize it as a subspecific character. It will 

 be noted that the western race is not whol- 

 ly rejected. It is stated that there are indi- 

 cations of differentiation, but they are not 

 deemed constant enough, or marked 

 enough, in British Columbian specimens to 

 warrant subspecific separation, and the 

 possibility of the existence of a well marked 

 race elsewhere, say in Washington or Cali- 

 fornia, is not disputed. Others who regard 

 any perceptible variation as sufficient 

 grounds for racial separation, or have rea- 

 sons for deciding that age does not explain 

 the difference in vermiculation, are at lib- 

 erty to form other opinions. They are cer- 

 tainly able to do so more intelligently with 

 the data included, than from a bald dog- 

 matic statement. The whole it seems to me 

 goes to the limit of caution and deference 

 to possibilities and to the opinions of oth- 

 ers, without the sacrifice of personal judg- 

 ment. If this is a fault, I plead guilty. 



The charge is made that many records 

 are useless to any student of distribution 

 without a re-examination of the material. 

 This may be true, but I think to a less ex 

 tent than in the majority of lists that are 

 received without remark, and the very 

 things that make it less true, bring forth 

 the criticism. In few lists will Mr. Swarth 

 accept everything just as it is written, when 

 they disagree with his own conceptions. I 

 recognize this, and give him every oppor- 

 tunity for translating my standards into 

 his, yet he objects. More details might 

 have been given, but the heading on every 

 other page, "Summary Report", is excuse 

 for condensation and brevity. These are 

 summary reports, and preliminary in char- 

 acter, not final studies, and the author feels 

 at liberty to reverse his findings any time 

 additional data warrants it. 



In the case of the single trinomial cited 

 by Mr. Swarth, Hybrid Flicker, Colaptes au- 

 ratus cafer, that is the result of a regretable 

 but obvious typographical error, the omis- 

 sion of the hybrid sign ( + ) between the 

 specific names, that slipped through the 

 proof reading. Being in the field at the 

 time, I was unable to attend to this import- 

 ant duty myself. 



P. A. Taverner, Museum Geological Sur- 

 vey, Ottawa, Ontario, August 19, 1918, 



