Page:Condor20(6).djvu/20

214 THI? CONDOR Vol. XX nomial system of list writing was not adopted as a protest against the subspecific or trinomial principle as such, nor in a spirit of arbitrary eccentricity; but, after due con- sideration, as a corrective to certain cur- rent evils that all. will acknowledge to exist, and in the full belief that it marks an ad- vance, not a retrogression in scientific rec- ord. The fundamental correctness of the method has not been questioned; the expedi- ency of applying it to technical scientific usage alone is under discussion. It consists in listing the species under bi- nomial headings, reserving subspecific de- termination for the text following. It has the advantage of allowing the writer as fine definition as his facilities and experience warrant, and permits him to qualify when in doubt, or to suspend judgment where he deems expedient. It has the further advant- age of making every subspecific designation a conscious act of judgment and direct as- sertion, discourages the unconsidered copy- ing of names, and encourages original re- search and the statement Of viewpoint and standards of judgment. It thus is flexible and adapted to all uses, and is a powerful psychological influence in the direction of caution. The evils that the writer thinks it tends to correct can be seen in any faunal list in which subspecific designations are given without the basis of their determinations being made clear, or a satisfactory authority being evident. A very good example of this use of subspecific names occurs in a list of birds of a section of one of the northern prairie states, in a recent number of an ornithological periodical of the high- est standing. I do not wish here to criti- cise either the author of this special paper, or the editor of the publication in which it occurs, but merely to call attention to a common fault, almost universally current, which could be largely corrected by the sys- tem in question. In this list, trinomials and subspecific no- menclature are used consistently through- out. Among other names appear B?teo bo- realis Icricleri, Melospiza meloclia ?z?eloclia and Agelaius pl?oeniceus pl?oeniceus. These identifications may be correct, but in this special region, the omission .of mention of the Eastern and Western Red-tail, the Da- kota Song Sparrow, or the Northern and Thick-billed Red-wing, requires for general acceptance, more authority than is evident. It is not clear from the context whether the author has examined and compared his spe- cimens himself, subjected them to the scru- tiny of others, or followed the common but reprehensible practice of identification by supposed geographical probability. If the identifications were by acknowledged au- thority, or followed generalized pronounce- merits of authority, we would like ?to know who that authority is. Decisions according to the A. O. U. CI?eclc-List may differ seri- ously from those by Mr. Ridgway, and both from other authorities that could be men- tioned, and until such information is fur- nished, we can but withhold judgment upon the statements advanced. If the subspecific conclusions are based upon generalizations of geographic distri- bution, they are worse than useless. Pur- porting to be additions to our knowledge. they add nothing to it either to confirm or correct existing conceptions. If, as Mr. Swarth says, "the value of such a list lies largely in the exact subspecific determina- tion of the various forms at the points at which the specimens are taken", the use- lessness of su. ch determil?ation when cor- rect, is as obvious as its danger when incor- rect. Geographical presumptions cannot be used as evidence for testing those presump- tions upon which they are founded. It is clear that in this case, representative of many others, trinomials are worth no more t}?an binomials, and the latter might well have been substituted for them. We are willing tO accept the writer's statement that some form of Red-tailed Hawk, Song Sparrow, or Red-winged Blackbird, occurs in the region treated, but the third terms in the names are so much waste ink and com- positing, containing potentialities for per- petuating error, without the possibility of correcting them. Subspecific designation is only warranted after specimens have been duly compared by competent authority with a suitable se- ries of material, and then draws all its vslue from the name of the responsible au- thority. Such work is of extremely technical nature, and is the field of the specialist who alone is competent through experience, and the possession of comparable material, to make pronouncement. It is neither possible nor necessary that all should be specialists, and facilities should be given workers in other branches of ornithology, whereby they can give to the world their undoubtedly val- uable results, without exceeding their legiti- mate limitations. The general public natur- ally follow the examples set by what they deem the best scientific practice, and when their models use nothing but trinomials, it is natural for them to conclude that they