32 
TIIE CONDOR 
Vol. XI 
orado up to the present time, and brings me to the point which I wish most to 
emphasize. 
A glance at the map will show that by far the greater part of ornithological 
work in Colorado has been restricted to the central portion of the state: a strip 
running from the northern to the southern boundary and comprising less than a 
third of our total area. This leaves the boundaries of our state practically un- 
touched on all four sides, with the exception of the work done by Smith and Fer- 
ril, and that done by Warren in the southeast corner; and the surprising discov- 
eries made by these gentlemen, is proof sufficient that it is in these remote parts 
of the state that our work from now on should be done and that from these places 
will come the most important additions to our information regarding Colorado 
ornithology. 
No better illustration of this fact could be found than that mentioned by Cooke 
where he states that in the collection of Frank Bond at Cheyenne, Wyoming, are 
six species of birds, taken by him at Cheyenne, less than ten miles from the Color- 
ado line that have not yet been recorded from this state. 
The eastern base of the foothills and much of the mountainous central portion 
of the state, were quite thoroly worked years ago; yet I think that most of us must 
plead guilty of doing over and over the work that has been so well done by those 
who were here before us. I do not mean to imply that our time is wasted in 
studying sections that have been thoroly studied, for there is always a great deal to 
be learned no matter how carefully the ground has been gone over before; but I do 
maintain that our efforts would be conducive of a greater number of, and more im- 
portant, discoveries if we turned our attention to those sections whose ornithology 
has been neglected. 
Does this condition of affairs not furnish food for reflection and would it not 
be a wise move for the active ornithologists of the state to get together and formu- 
late a definite line of work whereby the little studied portions of the state will re- 
ceive the attention we are now bestowing upon that portion of the state whose or- 
nithology is long past the elementary stage of development ? 
Denver , Colorado. 
FROM FIFLD AND STUDY 
Microscopic Subspecies: a Reply. — Mr. C. B. Linton (Condor, X, 181) raises again the 
question of the indentification of closely related subspecies taken from a boundary zone — neutral 
territory where the two intergrade. He also opens a question for answer that is practically the 
old question so often raised by the beginner in ornithology — “how are we going to name a bird 
correctly?” To this there is but one answer, I think, and I will endeavor to illustrate. 
To begin with, Mr. Linton’s caption “Microscopic” is hardly applicable as it stands; he does 
not state that the subspecific differences recognized between the types of the races mentioned are 
microscopic, but that the differences evident in the particular specimens he had in hand were 
microscopic; hence he is not warranted in applying the adjective to the race or its types, but 
should confine it to the specimens he refers to. That a recognizable difference exists between 
the types he has the authority of the A. O. U. Committee for. Take for instance the colors blue 
and green; they are certainly distinct when typical, but when we get to the greenish-blues and 
bluish-greens, there comes a point when no one can say positively what the color is. The same 
is true of subspecies; the types may be very different, but there comes a point when a specimen 
must be called intermediate — where one form grades into the other and it is impossible to state 
definitely to which race the specimen shall be referred. 
It is also known that individuals of one race may be taken in the type locality of a closely 
related race. These individuals wander away from home. An Englishman may go to New York, 
yet he is still an Englishman! 
This brings us to the answer to Mr. Linton's question: It is not always possible to definitely 
