Bs 
158 Vol. XXIV 
OUR ENGLISH NOMENCLATURE* 
By A. D. DUBOIS 
OR MANY years after subspecies began to be recognized, ornithologists 
F gave names to all the races of a species except one; that one race was 
designated by the name of the species only. For example, a little more 
than a decade ago, Stalia sialis was a species of which two races were recog- 
nized, one of which was called azurea; the other race was nameless. We now 
eall that nameless race, sialis. It is a mere repetition of the specific name, to 
be sure, but much better than no designation at all. In the meantime azurea 
has been changed to something else, but we nevertheless now have two subspe- 
cific Latin names for the two races of Sralia sialis. 
In our system of English names we are not so fortunate. Bluebird, pre- 
sumably, is a generic term; it is our English name for the genus, Sralia. How 
then, in view of our several North American species of this genus, can we be 
justified in designating one species, much less a single subspecies, as the Blue- 
bird? 
Of our three North American species of Bluebirds only one (the Moun- 
tain Bluebird) has been given an English name. The Mexican Bluebird (Svalia 
mexicana) has three races within our limits, with the subspecifie names, West- 
ern, Chestnut-backed, and San Pedro, respectively, but no English name ap- 
pears in the list to represent the species. The American Bluebird (Sialia 
sialis) exhibits a yet more remarkable combination. It has two races, one of 
which is called merely ‘‘Bluebird.’’ The other race of this species has the 
race name, Azure. The species has no English name whatever. 
We have no reason to fear the effect of a touch of science applied to the 
vulgar terminology. It should be not so much a ‘‘vernacular’’ system as a 
pure, scientific English system. A trinomial such as ‘‘EHastern American Blue- 
bird’’ would impose no new weight of responsibility upon the barefoot lad who 
loves all Bluebirds and knows but one variety. Neither need the ornitholo- 
sist feel constrained to announce to his neighbor, on the first bright day of 
spring, that the ‘‘Chestnut-backed Mexican Bluebird’’ has arrived; any more 
than he need tell him that his brother, ‘‘ James Montgomery Birderaft’’, is au- 
thority for the observation. ‘‘The bluebirds are back; Jim saw one this morn- 
ing’’, would convey the information between neighbors quite as fully as it 
does at present. 
As given in the current check-list, the name of the type-race of each sub- 
divided species is usually the specific name, though frequently a subspecific 
term. In many eases a subspecific name has been coupled with the generic 
name only, as previously pointed out in the case of the Bluebird. This prac- 
tice is very confusing to the student, especially to the beginner, who speaks 
and thinks of birds in terms of English names. As a further example, con- 
sider the Downy Woodpecker. This is a definite English name for the species 
Dryobates pubescens. There are several races. One of them (medianus) is 
called the Northern Downy Woodpecker; another (nelsoni), is the Alaskan 
Downy Woodpecker. These names are both logical and appropriate. But the 
names Willow Woodpecker and Batchelder’s Woodpecker, other races of the 
*A paper presented at the thirty-ninth Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union at Philadelphia, November 9, 1921, 
a 
