Garman.] 166 [March 19, 



become more and more general since Linne's time. There was 

 hope that in time these names would displace the vernaculars. 

 Lately, however, the progress of science is marked by subdivi- 

 sions of species and variety, subdivisions which demand record 

 in names. It is claimed by some that the trinomial system is bet- 

 ter adapted to the science of the present. If the present only 

 were to be considered we should have little to say. The import- 

 ant question is how can we best adapt present science to future 

 use. Evidently the trinomial is only sufficient to the day. 



According to recent lists all names are to be trinomials, either 

 through duplication or addition. Cinosterum pennsylvanicum 

 pennsylvanicum, for instance, is suggestive of a step backward 

 toward the repetition by the Aimara Indian. Cinosternum penn- 

 sylvanicum doubledayi, is another example. Compared with the 

 binomial there is in the trinomial a manifest increase in inconven- 

 ience on account of length. The stability or permanence of the 

 name is decreased by the addition of an element liable to change 

 or displacement on account of differences of opinion. Even if it 

 were adapted in other respects to the needs of science in the pres- 

 ent and the future, it is a question whether the trinomial compen- 

 sates for loss of permanence and convenience. It is apparent to 

 those who make studies of species that it will not be long before 

 increase of knowledge will demand subdivision of varieties, and 

 that reasons similar to those now used in favor of trinomials exist 

 and will be urged in favor of quadrinomials. Certain ornitholo- 

 gists assert that the end has come with the trinomial, that further 

 subdivision is unnecessary. They admit that varieties of varie- 

 ties exist and are distinguishable, but, like writers of a short time 

 ago who would not notice varieties, they do not consider them 

 worthy of attention. The following quotation from the Auk, 

 April, 1884, p. 202, gives an idea of their attitude in regard 

 to pursuing their own route farther than they have decided 

 to lead us : "There are also many local variations that are not 

 too slight to be detected but which are either too slight or 

 too inconstant to require recognition. . . . While theoretically 

 it is possible to recognize 'varieties of varieties,' in practice this 

 rarely occurs, and should never be countenanced ; if a form is 

 different enough to be recognized, it should stand as a variety of 

 the common stock, not as a variety of a variety although it may be 



