160 THE CONDOR Vol. XXIV 
I think they should not be adopted in the scientific list. No species ean be 
adequately named by a single term. 
With reference to the kinds of terms that are applicable, it may be said 
in general that descriptive names seem more appropriate for species, since spe- 
cies are based on distinct characters, while locality names or the names of 
persons are better suited to subspecies, which are geographically variable and 
as a rule only slightly differentiated in characteristics. Such terms as Hast- 
ern, Western, Northern, Southern, seem eminently suitable for the designation 
of races, but should be avoided as far as possible for the naming of species. 
It would probably not be advisable to revise any existing names to comply 
with such usage, except in cases where an earlier name had been abandoned 
and could be revived without confusion. I think, for example, that ‘‘Louisi- 
ana Tanager’’ was a better name than ‘‘ Western Tanager’’. The older name 
was geographically appropriate, had a historical background, and possessed a 
certain ‘‘color’’ or euphony, which suited the subject much better than the 
bald term, ‘‘Western’’. Furthermore, it was in use for years, and is still used 
in thought if not in print. 
Personally, I think that the possessive form is appropriate for subspecific 
names but not for the names of species. If this were adopted as a rule of 
nomenclature it would preclude such awkward combinations as Vigors’s Be- 
wieck’s Wren, Anthony’s Hutton’s Vireo or Frazar’s Hutton’s Vireo; these 
would become Vigors’ Bewick Wren, Anthony’s Hutton Vireo and Frazar’s 
Hutton Vireo. 
No matter how ‘‘popular’’ a false name may be among laymen, it should 
not be recognized by a body of scientific men, whose endeavors are presumably 
directed toward education of the public. A Sandpiper should not be called a 
‘*Plover’’; neither should an Anhinga be recognized throughout the English- 
speaking world as a ‘‘Turkey’’! Even ‘‘Nighthawk’’ is a rather unfortunate 
misnomer. Probably most of us have been asked if the Nighthawk catches 
chickens. : 
Of greater importance than the selection of the most appropriate English 
names, 1s the logical presentation of them in the system of classification. At 
present the species and subspecies in the abridged edition of the A. O. U. cheek- 
list are ‘‘all in a jumble’’. Those species which have no racial subdivisions 
are represented in the Latin nomenclature by a binomial, so that their status 
is perfectly clear. But each species which is subdivided is represented by the 
trinomial of one of its races instead of the binomial of the species in general, 
while the number used therewith is the number of the species in general (with- 
out the suffix of a race). The Snow Goose will serve to illustrate. It ap- 
peared in the former list as follows: 
169 Chen hyperborea 
Lesser Snow Goose 
169a Chen hyperborea nivalis 
Greater Snow Goose 
Here we have the two races of the Snow Goose nicely differentiated by Eng- 
lish names, of ideal construction; but the first race has only the general num- 
ber and the Latin binomial of a species. 
In the third edition of the list we find it appearing thus: 
169 Chen hyperboreus hyperboreus 
Snow Goose 
169a Chen hyperboreus nivalis 
Greater Snow Goose 
