Sept., 1910 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
177 
fornia, Oregon and Washington, as might have 
been expected proved to lie based on onr Band- 
tailed Pigeon. As far as is known the Passen- 
ger Pigeon never occurred west of the Rocky 
Mountains. It appears now to be wholly ex- 
tinct everywhere. 
PU PLICATIONS REVIEWED 
(continued from page 175) 
We object to such a statement as this, under 
J’riojinus cinereus\ 1 ‘accidental once off coast of 
California.” “But one record”, would have been 
better, as the latter phrase implies limitations 
rather upon our own knowledge. “Accidental” 
is an unwarranted assumption of what in many 
cases proves to be untrue, as when a species, 
previously unknown, upon closer observation, 
or exploration of new localities, is found to be 
of regular occurrence within the region under 
consideration. Then, too, an unusual visitant 
may make its appearance under circumstances 
quite apart from any accident. The term is not 
a well-chosen one. 
In the matter of classification, as we have 
alredy remarkt, there is no change. It is 
extremely regrettable that a new classification, 
based on Gadow, which, we are informed in 
the Preface, Ridgway and Stejneger had under- 
taken to prepare for this Edition, was not 
finally adopted and installed thruout. Insted, 
the classification and sequence is that of the 
original A. O. U. Check-List, issued 25 years 
ago! 
Ornithology is wonderfully fortunate in that 
it offers a field of plesurable interest to the 
amateur scientist, whose numbers increase year 
by year. We rejoice in this. At the same 
time there is clearly thretened the danger that 
the serious science itself will suffer. This 
appears all the more imminent when its few 
trained and professional constituents begin to 
defer to popular (amateur) preferences. The 
A. O. U. Committee “on Nomenclature and 
Classification” is lookt to from other fields of 
science as a representative body, to be expected 
in its publications to present the very latest 
residts of ornithological research. The com- 
mittee admits that the modern system of 
classification, adopted in most of the standard 
ornithological works of today, is desirable; yet 
it adheres to the system of 25 years ago be- 
cause of feared inconvenience. While any sys- 
tem, of any period, may be expected and hoped 
to change, as knowledge increases, it is certain- 
ly due to amateurs and professional students in 
all fields alike that authoritative treatises, such 
as is the A. O. U. Check-List, provide in all 
respects an up-to-date exposition of its subject. 
In the statuses of species and subspecies 
there appears to be a sad lack of consistency as 
to rank of the lesser differentiated forms. An 
extreme example is ‘ ' Thryomanes leucophrys," 
of San Clemente Island. Why not Thryomanes 
beivicki leucophrys , and thus unify the treat- 
ment of all of the various isolated forms inhab- 
iting the Santa Barbara islands? Evidently 
there is no regularly-adhered-to criterion for 
subspecific status. Note the following: Passer- 
cu/us beidingi and Passerculus sandwichensis 
bryanti\ Junco aikeni , Junco hyemalis hyemalis , 
Junco hyemalis oreganus, and Junco bairdi\ 
Corvus caurinus and Corvus brachyrhynchos 
hesperis; Creciscus jamaicensis and Creciscus 
coturniculus ; Kalins levipes and Rallus obsoleP- 
us\ Arquatella maritima maritima, Arqua- 
tella maritima couesi and Arquatella mari- 
tima ptilocnemis; Leucosticte griseonucha, 
Leucosticte tephrocotis tephrocotis and Leucos- 
ticte tephrocotis litloralis. * After all, is consist- 
ency in this regard attainable until we return 
to the old-fashioned but non-ambiguous pure 
binomial system of nomenclature? There are 
cases where to revive a former usage, is in 
reality a step forward. 
Referring now to the employment of vernac- 
ular names, we are disappointed to observe 
that the useless possessive is retained in per- 
sonal names. For instance, we are again forced 
to read “Cooper’s Tanager”, insted of the more 
euphonious and truthful Cooper Tanager; 
“Samuels’s Song Sparrow” for Samuels .Song- 
Sparrow. It would seem that here, in the 
matter of vernacular names, the convenience 
and preferences of the majority of popular bird- 
students might have been consulted to better 
purpose than in the system of classification 
adopted. 
Then, too, we might have well been per- 
mitted to call our California Condor hy that 
name insted of California ” Vulture Inter- 
mediate Sparrow insted of “Gambel’s” Spar- 
row; Sierra Junco insted of “Thurber’s” Junco; 
Western Kingbird insted of “Arkansas” King- 
bird; Tawny Creeper insted of “California” 
Creeper; Spurred Towliee insted of “San Diego” 
Towhee, and Mountain Towliee insted of 
“Spurred” Towhee. A still more flagrant case 
is the retention of “House Finch” as against 
California Linnet, even tho the latter had been 
announced (Auk, 1909, p. 50,3) as chosen. 
A distinctly unhappy error seems to have 
been committed in not providing subspecies 
with separate qualifying terms. For instance, 
there is Song Sparrow (for Melospiza melodia 
me/odia), Desert Song Sparrow (for A/, m. 
fa/la.v), Mountain .Song Sparrow, etc.; Blue- 
bird, Azure Bluebird, Western Bluebird, etc.; 
Crow, Florida Crow, Western Crow, etc.; Gold- 
