
No. 424.] NOTES AND LITERATURE. ; 335 
the names as binomials ; e.g., Pyrrhulagra ridgwayi for P. noctis ridg- 
wayi Cory; Melospiza graminea for M. cinerea graminea (Townsend). 
A very singular case is that of Æuetheia bicolor omissa, occupying 
most of the West Indian Islands, but replaced in Jamaica, Haiti, 
Barbados, and Grenada by Æ. b. marchii. Are we to suppose that 
the latter once occupied the whole chain of islands but has given, 
way to the former wherever it appeared upon the scene? 
Two statements in the work seem to call for special comment. 
One is as follows: * The necessity for beginning this work with the 
highest instead of the lowest forms is to be regretted, and may be 
explained by briefly stating that owing to inadequate facilities for 
properly arranging the larger birds in the National Museum collec- 
tion these are not available for study, and consequently it became 
necessary either to begin with the smaller birds, already systemati- 
cally arranged, or else postpone the work indefinitely." 
That such a statement should be made regarding our National 
Museum may well make us feel ashamed. Is this country too poor 
to provide facilities for such a man as Mr. Ridgway, who returns to 
it a thousandfold the small means it has placed at his disposal? Are 
we so blind that we cannot see that scientific knowledge is more than 
the equivalent of money ; is not merely convertible into that medium, 
but is in itself far more nearly an end of national existence, since 
it adds to the worth of the individual himself, and not merely to the 
worth of that which is temporarily attached to him? 
The other statement referred to is quite different. We are told: 
“There are two essentially different kinds of ornithology: systematic, 
or scientific, and popular. The former deals with the structure and 
classification of birds, their synonymies and technical descriptions. 
The latter treats of their habits, songs, nesting, and other facts per- 
taining to their life-histories." The present writer has to confess 
that this statement quite took his breath away. The study of living 
birds, then, is “popular,” but the study of their mortal remains, 
stuffed with cotton and provided with tags, or occasionally, perhaps, 
immersed in alcohol, — this is “scientific.” It is hardly possible 
that Mr. Ridgway could have intended his words to be taken literally. 
No one could deny that Mr. Ridgway’s work on museum material is 
in the highest degree scientific, and we may freely admit that nine- 
tenths of what is written on the habits, nesting, etc., of birds is much 
less so; but it surely does not follow that the story of life histories 
is in the least degree less scientific, in itself, than any other branch 
of ornithology.. One might as well say that the study of alcoholic 
