General Notes. 
233 
such forms as the writer considers valid and trenchantly defined species 
and those which he views as mere geographical varieties, except in so far 
as this may be indicated in the general text. A good illustration of the 
inadequacy of binomials is seen when their strict employment necessitates 
the addition of several lines, it may be paragraphs, to the text, with the 
alternative of leaving the author’s precise estimate of the rank of a named 
form in obscurity. 
The change from the binomial towards a more comprehensive system has 
been a somewhat gradual one, and the use of an explanatory abbreviated 
term, as “ var.” or “ subsp.,” was probably a necessary compromise, paving 
the way, as we believe, for the final and universal adoption of the pure trino- 
mial. With a general understanding of the exact significance of the trino- 
mial, as at present employed, we see not the slightest necessity for the use of 
the above expressions, or, in fact, for the interposition of any explanatory 
term, since such may be understood as implied in the trinomial itself, as 
contrasted with the binomial, which may be limited to such absolutely de- 
fined species as are not known to intergrade. 
Mr. Ridgway’s plan of the use of Greek letters would certainly have an 
advantage over the method of writing var. or subsp. in so far as it is less 
cumbersome, but its seeming advantage of greater precision would, as Mr. 
Allen has shown, inevitably lead to confusion in the instance of forms 
treated differently by different writers, or by the same writer at different 
times. 
We therefore unhesitatingly express our preference for the pure trino- 
mial. — H. W. Henshaw, Washington, D. C. 
Note on Helminthophaga gunnii, Gibbs. — The bird described in 
the Grand Rapids “Daily Democrat” of June 1, 1879, as a new species of 
Helminthophaga, for which the above name was proposed, has been recently 
forwarded to the Smithsonian Institution for examination ; and having had 
the privilege of inspecting the example in question, it gives me great 
pleasure to offer a few remarks concerning it. In the first place, it may 
be stated that Mr. Purdie’s surmise (see his article in the July number 
of this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 185), that the specimen might be merely a 
variation of H. leucobronchialis , Brewster, is correct. The specimen col- 
lected by Mr. Gunn, and named after that gentleman, is in all essential 
respects like the type of H. leucobronchialis, (which, through the courtesy 
of its owner, I examined several years ago,) except that the breast has 
a large, well-defined patch of bright gamboge-yellow, while the upper 
parts are much less brightly colored, both the yellow of the crown (es- 
pecially posteriorly) and the bluish-gray of the nape, back, and wings 
being obscured by a wash of olive-green. The yellow wing-patch is also 
more restricted than in the male. The yellow breast-patch, which is very 
abruptly defined anteriorly against the pure white of the jugulum, does 
not extend back to the flanks and abdomen, but is strictly limited to the 
