-Mar., 1919 
fice of the American Representative, 
Franco-American War Affairs Commis- 
sion, Elysée Palace, Paris, France. (Dec., 
1918.) 
SHELTON, Alfred C., Second Lieutenant, San- 
itary Corps, Camp Crane, Pa. (Jan., 1919.) 
Discharged. 
SILLIMAN, Edmund, Naval Reserve. 
1919.) 
Smi1TH, Allyn G., Second Lieutenant, Air Ser- 
vice, Instructor, Radio Officers’ Training 
School, Columbia University, New York 
City. (Dec., 1918.) 
STIvErs, Dr. C. G., Captain, Medical Corps, 
Air Service, San Francisco. (Dec., 1918.) 
STODDARD, H. L., Sergeant, Co. B, 311th Am- 
munition Train, A. E. F., France. (Dec., 
1918.) 
Storer, Tracy I., First Lieutenant, Sanitary 
Corps, Laboratory Car ‘Metchnikoff,’ Ft. 
Sam Houston, Texas. (Jan., 1919.) Dis- 
charged. 
SWEENEY, J. A., Private, Co. E, 2d Battalion, 
20th Engineers (Forest), A. KE. F., France. 
(Agi dan. 1919.) 
TyLeR, Dr. Winsor M., Captain, Medical 
Corps, Ft. Adams, R. I. (Awk, Jan., 1919.) 
UrrorD, Elmer D., A. E. F.. (Feb., 1919.) 
Van Rossem, Adriaan, First Lieutenant, Ma- 
chine Gun School, Camp Hancock, Ga. 
(Dec., 1918.) 
Wa ker, Alex., Battery A., 45th Regiment, 
Coast Artillery Corps, A. E. F., France. 
Dec., 1918.) 
Woop, Casey A., Lieutenant Colonel, Medical 
Corps, Staff of Surgeon General, Wash- 
ington, D. C. (Dec., 1918.) Entered service, 
June, 1917. Earlier, in charge of Examining 
Unit, Chicago, Ill., and then Chief of Head 
Survey, Camp Sherman, Ohio. Recently, 
Acting-Director of Board on Medical and 
Surgical History of the War. (Dec., 1918.) 
WricHt, Howard, Navy. 
YouneG, John P., Major, Camp Dix, N. J. 
COMMUNICATION 
TRINOMIALS AND CURRENT PRACTICE 
Editor THE CoNnpor: 
It seems to me that various points brought 
up by Swarth in his review (CoNDoR, xx, 
1918, pp. 141-142) of Taverner’s papers in the 
“Summary Report of the Geological Survey, 
Department of Mines, for the Calendar Year 
1916” (Ottawa, Canada), and Mr. Taver- 
ner’s reply to the same (ibid., pp. 213-216), 
are worthy of further discussion. There 
have been several innovations in ornitholog- 
ical practice during the past year, and at 
least the main points of these merit careful 
consideration by American ornithologists. 
For bird papers of a strictly “popular” 
(Feb., 
MILITARY SERVICE RECORD g1 
style, the method of procedure adopted by 
Mr. Taverner in his articles could be used 
with gratifying results. This class of liter- 
ature is increasing in quantity and popular- 
ity, and for such, the purely trinomial no- 
menclature is admittedly cumbersome and 
confusing to many readers. How much bet- 
ter would it be for authors uniformly to use 
the binomial for the Latin, and the specific 
name for its English equivalent, instead of 
the name of the eastern race as is common- 
ly employed in such case. For entirely sci- 
entific, and what I may term popular-scien- 
tific work, however, the old system seems 
better, although it is far from ideal. 
Mr. Taverner says that the plan which he 
has followed “discourages the unconsidered 
copying of names and encourages original 
research”. In future years, however, when 
gathering published information for a re- 
port on some general region, another author 
cannot personally verify all binomial rec- 
ords and identify all the specimens referred 
to. In fact, if this binomial system were in 
general use, it would be almost impossible 
for anyone to prepare an authoritative re- 
port on a region, because of this difficulty 
of using. previously published information. 
Even though Mr. Taverner does make tri- 
nomial notations at other points in his pa- 
pers, that does not alter the general com- 
plexion of the matter, for an article which is 
both binomial and trinomial in nomencla- 
ture has the faults of both systems and the 
advantages of neither. 
I think that the majority will agree with 
Swarth that ‘the value of such a list lies 
largely in the exact subspecific determina- 
tion of the various forms at the points at 
which the specimens are taken’’—all of the 
forms, and not just those which the author 
deems worthy of special notation. Unless 
some contributions to the habits and life 
histories of birds are given also, that is its 
only value, as I see it. Although in the vast 
majority of lists, specimens of all subspecies 
mentioned have not been secured, one who 
is familiar with his locality can be reason- 
ably certain of identities, usually, and if he 
is not, he should, and often does, indicate 
his uncertainty. To an expert in geograph- 
ical distribution, the binomial name possibly 
conveys all that is necessary, but the aver- 
age reader and bird student wants to know 
the probable form encountered, and will 
almost never bother to search out its logi- 
eal identity.. 
I heartily agree that too many articles 
are “thrown together’ without the proper 
