May, 1911 
LITERARY PRINCIPLES IN ORNTTIIOLOdlCAL WRITING 
further investigation. Another instance was the finding, in the above locality, of 
several deserted nests of the Western Robin and the Sierra Hermit Thrush ( Hylo- 
cichla guttata sequoieusis) containing either two or three apparently fresh eggs, 
while a dried up egg-shell lay beside them. I suspected whatever agency had de- 
stroyed the one egg was incapable of destroying the others, and concluded it to be 
the work of some insect. It was only last year, however, that I was afforded the 
opportunity of solving it. I came across deserted nests of eggs of both the above 
mentioned birds. In each nest an egg had been clawed, and the nest was swarmitig 
with ants. Whether the birds had deserted just after the egg had been clawed, 
or on the arrival of the ants I am not prepared to say. 
It is a mistake, I think, to abbreviate in any way the Latin name even if it 
exhaust every letter in the alphabet; for its chief virtue lies in being an exact name 
and this is lost when the name is not given in full. An instance of this kind oc- 
curs in the work of a very thorough ornithologist and one of unquestioned ability, 
and may be seen on page 424 of Davie’s Nests a)ui Eggs o f North Atnericau Birds, 
5th Edition. A nest is stated to have been placed “in a Xegundo 30 feet high.” 
I suspect this originally stood A. ueguudo and was misprinted to its present form, 
and that it was intended to be an abbreviation of Acer /legaudo califoruicum , the 
Cut-leaved Maple. Surely if it was worth while using the Latin term it was worth 
while giving it in full, otherwise why would not the vernacular name have sufficed ? 
No one can but realize the monumental work that has been done by Ridgw^ay 
in the interests of ornithology, nor doubt its scientific value. Yet the writer must 
acknowledge in perusing that great book, “The Birds of North and Middle 
America”, that he is puzzled to know the object of the vague and scattered descrip- 
tions of eggs given. These are almost absent in the earlier volumes but quite com- 
mon in vols. Ill and I\’. As they stand I do not see how they can be of much 
use to the student of oology, and if they are considered of value why were they not 
given uniformly throughout the work ? 
Personally I am opposed to the present rush to name new subspecies based on 
the ideas of a single worker, often on doubtful or insufficient evidence, frequently 
on a single skin, and, as recently, on only a portion of one. These I think only 
tend to hinder our progress in the study of geographical variation, for, wffien passed 
upon by the authorized judges, the past has shown that over half of these new sub- 
species are bowled over like ten pins, although their remains clog our literature for 
years afterward. If a constituted body has the authority to determine the standing 
of these claimants to subspecific rank why would it not be the better plan to first 
submit the specimens with their proposed name, etc., to the committee, and such 
as are favoraldy passed upon given out for publication ? 
I favor, too, set vernacular names based on the true relationship of birds, and 
I am opposed to calling, for instance, a falcon a sparrow hawk, or a turkey vulture 
a turkey buzzard simply because the latter names are the most familiar to the gen- 
eral public. The public needs education not misinformation. 
As to the Latin names, like many others I would like to see them possessed of 
a cast iron stability. But as long as certain priority hunters are allowed to, and 
persist in delving into long forgotten, obscure and musty books, to find out what 
some one called a certain bird in 1847 or some other year, it appears the ceaseless 
change wall continue. And all to what purpose ? The Check-List as it stands is 
ample for all purposes, I think, and a new canon should declare it permanent, al- 
lowing no change except cancellation wffiere a supposed species or subspecies is 
found nonexistent, or change in a generic name where the species is found to have 
been placed in the wrong genus. And after all what reasons can be given against 
