Page:Condor11(1).djvu/33

32 THE 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 ?s. 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 poi-tions 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. FB, OM FIELD AND STUD'Y 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 bnt one answer, I think, and I will endeavor to illustrate. To begin with, Mr. Lintoh'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. Lintoh's question: It is not always possible to definitely