22 
THE CONDOR 
I Vol. IV 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. 
Ridgway’s “Birds of North and Middle 
America.” 
The Birds | of | North and Middle America: | 
A Descriptive Catalogue | of the I Higher 
Groups, Genera, Species, and Sub-species of 
Birds ! Known to Occur in North America, 
from the | .Arctic Lands to the Isthmus of 
Panama, | the West Indies and Other Islands | 
of the Caribbean Sea, and the ] Galapagos 
Archipelago. | By | Robert Ridgway, | Curator, 
Division of Birds. | — | Part I. | Family Frin- 
gillidae ^The Finches. | — | Washington; | 
Government Printing Office, | igoi. pp.i-xxx, 
1-7 15, pll. I-XX. (= Bulletin No. 50, U. S. 
Nat. Mus.) 
The first part of this long-expected work 
reached us early in November; and it has no 
doubt been examined by American ornith- 
ologists with more eagerness than any other 
bird volume which has appeared for many 
years. For here we expect to find the latest 
views of a man who has done more systematic 
work with American birds than any one else 
now living. Mr. Ridgway states his attitude 
in the “Preface” somewhat as follows: 
Accepting evolution as an established fact, 
there cannot be any gaps in the series of exist- 
ing forms, except such as are caused by the 
loss of intermediate types. If we had the 
pow'cr of retrospection all would be found to 
converge to common ancestors at remote 
periods. There is therefore in nature no such 
definite groups of individu.ils as a species, 
genus or higher group; and boundaries of the 
arbitrarily determined groups can oidy be fixed 
at gaps where connecting forms have disap- 
peared. It thus happens that groups nominally 
of the same rank are often based on very 
unequal characters. All decisions in this re- 
gard must always vary more or less with per- 
sonal opinion. 
In regard to species and subspecies, two 
forms are treated as distinct species, if no 
geographical intergrades can be found to 
exist; otherwise the trinomial is used. But 
obviously, when closely related insular forms 
are to be treated, this rule fails, and here the 
author says that individual judgment comes 
into play, and the distinction made must be 
more or less arbitrary. 
How far intermediate forms should be rec- 
ognized by name, depends on the observer’s 
ability to discern differences and estimate the 
degree of their constancy. .\nd it is intimated 
that the future will find much finer distinc- 
tions sought out than now thought of. In the 
present work the author is governed only by 
his own judgment in this respect. “In all 
cases it has been the author’s desire to express 
exactly the facts as they appear to him in the 
light of the evidence examined, without any 
regard whatever to preconceived ideas,*** and 
without consideration of the inconvenience 
which may result to those who are inclined to 
resent innovations***. This question of species 
and subspecies and their nice discrimination is 
not the trivial matter that some who claim a 
broader view of biological science affect to 
believe. It is the very foundation of more 
advanced scientific work.” 
“Satisfactory decisions affecting the status 
of described but still dubious forms is a ques- 
tion both of material and investigation, and 
the author holds that no conclusion in such a 
matter should be accepted unless based upon 
an amount of material and careful investigation 
equal to that bestowed by the original de- 
scribee.” All of which seems to me very rea- 
sonable, and just now particularly pertinent! 
Turning to the body of the book, we find 
that Mr. Ridgway starts out by drawing a' dis- 
tinction between two “different kinds of 
ornithology: Systematic or scientific, and pop- 
ntar." Under the former he would include 
only such matter as pertains to “the structure 
and classification of birds, their synonymies 
and technical descriptions.” “The latter treats 
of their habits, songs, nesting, and other facts 
pertaining to their life-histories.” This does 
not seem to me a fair discrimination. One is 
led at once to believe that “poouhir” ornith- 
ology as here understood is unscientific; and 
that systematic ornithology alone is scientific! 
This queer idea is further emphasized by the 
author’s statement that “systematic ornith- 
ology, being a component part of Biology, the 
science of life, is the more instructive and 
therefore more important.” This again I am 
not satisfied to accept. The author’s attitude 
seems to be reflected in the present w’ork, 
where are pages of synonymy, technical de- 
scriptions and measurements, all-important to 
the systematist to be sure; but the ecologist 
finds not a word as to food, habits, nidification 
or anything that would help him in the study 
of the relation of the species or race to its 
environment; or the factors governing its dis- 
tribution, modification of habits and nesting. 
All of this seems to me of great scientific im- 
portance, perhaps in line with the discovery of 
the methods of the origin of species. And 
what about the student of migration, and the 
economist? Is their ornithological work nec- 
essarily “popular”? The term “popular” I 
had previously thought to apply to ornithology 
so simplified into vernacular language and 
freed from technicalities that it could be 
appreciated by every-day readers. But I re- 
volt at the idea that Bendire’s “Life Histories” 
is not scientific! 
Besides the consideration of the higher 
groups of all North American birds, which 
