96 
THE CONDOR 
I Vol. IV 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. 
Pacific Coast Avifauna ] No. 3 | Check-list 
of California Birds [ by | Joseph Griiinell j San- 
ta Clara, California | published by the Cooper 
Ornithological Club, June 25, 1902; p]) 1-92, 2 
maps, royal 8 vo. 
The long-expected State List has appeared in 
the form of a well compiled and useful check- 
list from the pen of I\Ir. Grinnell. The pain.s- 
taking labor involved in digging out and veri- 
fying records and synonyms is not such as 
would appeal to most Californians, who, per- 
haps, are chronicalh’ eager for quick results. 
P'or this reason the finished Check-list will 
prove all the more acceptable to us, and 3 Ir. 
Grinnell is to be congratulated on the success- 
ful completion of the largest and best jirepared 
vState List that has yet appeared. Not oidy is 
the Check-list full but it is likewise authorita- 
tive, and it is to be hoped that our club mem- 
bers will adopt this as a basis for future faunal 
lists. 
The paper of ninety-two pages opens with a 
preface explaining the author’s stand on (jues- 
tions of nomenclature, and his attitude in 
regard to the admission of doubtful records and 
species in poor standing. “In compiling the 
present list, the author has tried to be reason- 
ably conservative as regards the admission of 
species in doubtful standing. In order to be 
worthv of a place on the State List an ‘acci- 
dental’ must have been as a rule .secured and 
preserved so that it can be re-identified when- 
ever desirable. The more unusual and unex- 
pected the alleged occurrence of a species, the 
better the evidence must be of such occurrence 
before it can be accepted as authentic.’’ For this 
reason the Hypothetical List is rather long. The 
sequence of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
Check-list has been followed, but the nomen- 
clature in many cases “has been remodeled ac- 
cording to the best of the author’s own knowl- 
edge.’’ The author has taken the commendable 
stand that “ ‘A binomial is preferable to a tri- 
nomial when there is any good excuse for its 
adoption.’ (Ridgway),’’ and has cousequenth- 
reduced to binomials a number of names which 
have usually been written as trinomials. Dis- 
carding the “slight degree of difference’’ 
heresy, and the criterion of intergradation 
thru individual variation as leading to endless 
confusion, the author has regarded as sub- 
species only such forms as have been found to 
intergrade over a continuous geographical area. 
Consequent!}’ all insular and geographically 
isolated forms are treated as distinct species. 
To the present reviewer this appears a mos 
sensible course, a course not incompatible with 
logic and facts, and one which in the pages of 
the Check-list has proven thoroughly practic 
able. vSuch a stand may’ at first seem radical. 
but in reality it is only in heed to the very sane 
warning uttered nearly twenty years ago by 
Dr. Stejneger. i 
There has been a marked tendency to reduce 
binomials to trinomials in recent years, merely 
on supposition of intergradation, or from “.slight 
degree of difference’’ qualifications. This, 
rather than the so-called hair-splitting, has 
lieen the chief injury’ to ornithology’. For some 
time the insidious “degree of difference’’ cri- 
terion has held a pernicious place in the affec- 
tions of .some of our systematists, and has 
proved to be one of the most unscientific 
theories of the manv which must be charged 
against ornithology. To assume that all species 
are separated by’ approximately the same 
amount of difference is palpably’ absurd for we 
know that while some perfectly good species 
can hardly be told from their nearest relatives, 
others are subgenerically’ separated from their 
closest congeners. Because one species can 
not readily be told from another does not nec- 
essarily militate against its validity’ as a full 
species. Nor, in the absence of any scientific 
evidence, does it make more excusable the use 
of a trinomial as an easy .solution of the diffi- 
culty. Under this regime the jiarticular mood 
of the describer and nothing else would deter- 
mine whether a new species receive a binomial 
or a trinomial designation. One of the boasts 
of science has been the minimizing of the per- 
sonal equation but here we have to do with 
little else. For the use of trinomials in insular 
forms, much can be .said, and admittedly this 
is a problem hard to settle. But beyond an 
apparent advantage in .showing relationshiji (a 
function which nomenclature can not hope to 
fulfil) the trinomial possesses no advantage 
over the binomial. We should not allow mat- 
ters of personal convenience to obscure what 
seem to be the real facts. vSureh’ the facts 
would warrant the binomial here, as in the 
case of the geographically isolated ‘race.’ In 
this case individual variation has been mis- 
taken for geographical, or has been taken as 
.sufficient evidence of subspecific rank. By 
adopting a simple rule as a guide the author of 
the present check-list has tried to root out as 
many of the spurious trinomials as facts would 
permit. A salutary course for the future would 
be the application of Dr. J. A. Allen’s golden 
rule “the test of intergradation,’’ vShould 
any enthusiastic trinomalist wish to reduce bi- 
nomials the burden of proof must rest with 
him. 
Two colored maps of California, one illus- 
trating the life zones and the other the faunal 
areas will be of great u.se in elucidating the dis- 
tribution of species, especially for those who 
are not very familiar with the phy’siography 
and climate of this wonderfully diversified 
state. The life zones are those made familiar 
I Proc. U. S. Nat. Mu.s. VH, 1884 p. 78. 
