Page:Condor20(6).djvu/21

Nov., 1918 COMMUNICATION 2t5 should do the same, and in accepting hypo- theses as established facts, copy authority not wisely but too well. This evil cannot be corrected until the leaders set the example, and by their practice put the seal of ap- proval upon a system that can be followed by all without drawing invidious distinction. The system under discussion meets these requirements. "The startling innovation in style," of which Mr. Swarth complains, is really no in- novation, as it was used by Stone and Cram in their American Animals in 1902. Mr. Sv?arth does not imply that it is fundament- ally or scientifically wrong, nor probably would he admit that innovations are to be deprecated, if sufficient reason can be ad- vanced for their adoption. This I have at- tempted to do. The English name that accompanies the binomial in the lists under discussion, is the specific one, and not that of the east- ern variety. Mr. Swarth is justified per- haps in being a little uncertain on this point, as the A. O. U. Check-List a?d current prac- tice has in many cases applied this name to one of the component parts of the species. Even this sanction, however, does not make the practice correct. Certainly Cassin's Vireo is just as much entitled to the name Solitary Vireo as the eastern race is. The latter can claim title to the term Blue- headed Vireo, or anything else that can be agreed upon. Other species show the incor- rect practice of the A. O. U.' Check-List more clearly than this one does. Thus, the term American Robin obviously applies to all the races of the species, the A. O. U. Checl?-L?st to the contrary notwithstanding; whilst the race so designated at present re- quires a qualified term like Eastern Robin to differentiate it from the Western or the Southern 'forms. The part should not limit to itself the. name of the whole. A system like the one under discussion, requires-the correction of all of these misapplications of specific terms to racial parts. While agreeing with Mr. Swarth as to the necessity of recognizing and studying sub- species and their distribution, I cannot but feel that the subject has been given an un- due importance in American ornithological presentations. Subspecific differentiation is but a part of the study of ornithology, not its end and object. We are today suf- fering not only from what Dr. Dwight Calls an "indigestion of names" but also, to use another term from the pen of the same apt phrase-maker, from the "exaltation of the subspecies". The subspecies, as a taxon? mic division, is decidedly secondary to the species in importance. Though through ge- ological time the species is a variable and uncertain quantity, at any one moment or on any given geological horizon, it is prac- tically a fixed quantity. Orders, genera and families are but conventional groupings of lower units merging into each other, with boundaries set by individual and varying opinions of expediency. Subspecies are also hazy in their outlines, and, within their specific limitations, blend together with ar- bitrary separations. As far as individual human experience is concerned, species are comparatively fixed quantities, and are the only approximately definite and stable units of taxonomic measurement with which the zoologist deals. However, so closely has the lesser hazy division (subspecies) been examined, that it has seemed to occupy most of the horizon, and obscured the greater specific fact. The binomial method of heading corrects this distorted perspective, and by presenting the proper relationships visually, tends to restore them to their proper proportions in public concept. It does this, in spite of Mr. Swarth's com- plaints to the contrary, without loss of de: finiteness, for the writer can be as min- utely accurate as he cares to be. The vagueness to which he objects is purely per- sonal to the writer and these special pa- pers, and are not inherent in the system. The system and the writer are two separate subjects, and each should be judged upon its own merits. "In many cases," Mr. Swarth says, "where he has evidently made up his mind as to the subspecies represented, there seems to be no good reason why the proper subspe- cific name should not be placed plainly as a heading." The contrary method was fol- lowed for the sake of consistency, to .illus- trate the flexibility of the system, and as an example. Liberties may be taken with an established and recognized system, but when under demonstration it should be fol- lowed to its logical conclusion, and tested for all cases. The "atmosphere of vagueness and un- certainty" that Mr. Swarth finds in the pa- pers in question, is understandable. One of the 'features of current practice is that we treat with finality and definiteness subspe- cific phenomena that are essentially vague and uncertain. Reading over various lists and descriptions, there is little or no indi- cation given that many of the subspecific generalizations treated with dogmatic as- sertion, are after all but the expression of