50 
THE CONDOR 
I Vol. IV 
COMMUNICATIONS. 
QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.® 
Some months ago editorial comment was 
made in the Condor (Jnly-August 1900, p. 95) 
on a ‘valnable service to ornithologists whose 
lots are cast in the San Francisco Bay region, 
referring to the recognition by name of certain 
birds of this region which are intermediate in 
character between those found to the north and 
south resj)ectively. B'roni the standpoint 
taken, which seems to be one for convenience 
in labeling specimens, this ‘solution of the 
difficulty’ might commend itself to collectors 
in that region providing they never received 
specimens from their fellow collectors a little 
to the north or south, and to these latter it 
would be a more or less questionable boon un- 
der any circumstances. In case the ornitholo- 
gists of the San Francisco Bay region should 
(lesire to attach names to the birds found not 
more than 100 miles either north, south or east 
of them they woidd find that this supposed la- 
bor-saving device had multiplied their troubles 
instead of simplifying them. Moreover, an 
additional name in a group of this kind rather 
tends to obscure the relationships of the forms 
than otherwise. To one who has seen no spec- 
imens whatever the binomial Chamcea Jasci- 
ata and the trinomial Chamcea t. phcea woidd 
indicate “an unbroken gradation from one to 
the other,” exactly what admittedly exists. 
Thus if two names indicate the facts it would 
not seem to be more convenient to have three. 
Under different circumstances however it is 
conceivable that even with no greater difference 
between the extremes it might be advisable to 
adopt several names in order to represent the 
facts; and this also even if the respective de- 
grees of difference were slight and difficult to 
determine. 
To illustrate, let the lines A, A', B, C. D, E, 
F', and G in the accompanying diagram repre- 
sent the intensity of a variable characterof any 
two animals at various points in their develop- 
ment and the lines C and A F the extent of 
the animals’ distribution. In one case sup- 
pose the salient character or characters to have 
developed uninterruptedly from condition to 
condition C and these extremes recognized by 
name; then suppose in another case a develop- 
ment frcm A to D, after which there is a con- 
stant condition from D to hi with the intensity 
*See Bird T,ore, iii, 38-39, Jan.-Fet). 1901. 
of D, and in like manner suppose a develop- 
ment from E to G and thence constant to F. 
In this case although the intensity of F does 
not exceed that of C it seems that the facts can 
be best represented in nomenclature by three 
names instead of two and although the inten- 
sity of B and D are equal it would be advisable 
to recognize U in nomenclature, while it would 
serve no useful purpose, as far as present know- 
ledge goes, to treat B in the same manner. 
This is theory. The real conditions are of 
course much more involved than any simple 
diagram can indicate; nevertheless the rapid 
increase of collections and knowledge of physi- 
ographic conditions constantly contribute to 
the elucidation of problems of this sort. Such 
questions certainly appear in the study of 
groups of mammals and possibly to a slighter 
degree in the study of birds. Cert- 
ainly a name is unnecessary for a 
condition which represents neither of two ex- 
tremes nor a special development of either, but 
merely a point betw’een them on either side of 
which is a progressive development in opposite 
directions. And furthermore, degree of differ- 
ence is not the sole criterion for the applica- 
tion of names; and the fact that a species or 
subspecies is difficult to identify is not alone a 
reason for withholding a name. A lazy ‘lay’ 
ornithologist or an ignorant one might contend 
that, since it requires care and experience to 
distinguish some species Empidona.c,\i w’ould 
be most convenient to ‘lump’ them. As a matter 
of fact there have been very few subspecies de- 
scribed which are as difficult of discrimination 
as the species Empidona.r minimus and E. 
trailli aluorum. 
The tendency to revolt among the ‘lay’ 
class against the so-called splitting seems to be 
not so much because it is thought to be based 
on unsound principles, but more because it 
brings about a multiplication of names which 
are hard to remember and because it makes 
the identification of individual specimens diffi- 
cult. The popular ornithologist, following in 
the footsteps of other popular scientists, has 
reached the point where he cannot keep pace 
with the man who gives up his life to technical 
work. There was a time when country gentle- 
men of the Gilbert White type were able to 
keep fairly abreast of all branches of natural 
science, but now to be expert in any one 
branch requires almost a lifetime of study. 
The question then arises — is this a deplorable 
condition, or is it the natural outcome of a vast 
increase in quantity and ((uality of material, a 
corresponding increase in facilities for w'ork, 
and a convenient access to useful contributive 
results of investigations in other branches of 
science? Is it strange that the careful orni- 
thologist shoidd continually add named and 
