Page:Condor13(3).djvu/5

May, 1911 LITERARY PRINCIPLES IN ORNITHOLOGICAL WRITING 83 further investigation. Another instance was the finding, in the above .locality, of several deserted nests of the Western Robin and the Sierra Hermit Thrush (jrirylo - cichla guttara sequoiensis) containing either two or three apparently fresh eggs? while a dried up egg-shell lay beside them. I suspected whatever agency had de- stroyed the one egg was incapable of destroying the others, and concluded it .to be the work of some insect. It was only last year, however, that I was afforded the opportunity of solving it. I came across deserted nests of eggs of both the above mentioned birds. In each nest an egg had been clawed, and the nest was swarming with ants. Whether the birds had deserted just after the egg had been clawed, or on the arrival of the ants I am not prepared to say. It is a mistake, I think, to abbreviate in any way the Lhtin name even if it exhaust every letter in the alphabet; for its chief virtue lies in being an exact name and this is lost when the name is not given in full. An instance of this kind oc- curs in the work of a very thorough ornithologist and one of unquestioned ability, and may be seen on page 424 of Davie's JVestsand F?ggs of 2orth American l?irds, 5th Edition. A nest is stated to have been placed "in a Negundo 30 feet high." I suspect this originally stood A. negundo and was misprinted to its present form, and that it was intended to be an abbreviation of Acer negun.do cahfornicum, the Cut-leaved Maple. Surely if it was worth while using the Latin term it was worth while giving it in full, otherwise why would not the vernacular name have sufficed ? No one can but realize the monumental work that has been done by Ridgway in the interests of ornithology, nor doubt its scientific value. Yet the writer must acknowledge in perusing that great book, "The Birds of North and Middle America", that he is puzzled to know the object of the vague and scattered descrip- tions of eggs given. These are almost absent in the earlier volumes but quite com- mon in vols. III and IV. As they stand I do not see how they can be of much use to the student of oology, and if they are considered of value why were they not given uniformly throughout the work ? Personally I am opposed to the present rush to name new subspecies based on the ideas of a single worker, often on doubtful or insufficient eviden'ee, frequently on a single skin, and, as recently, on only a portion of one. These I think only tend to hinder our progress in the study of geographical variation, for, when passed upon by the authorized judges, the past has shown that over half of these new sub- species are bowled over like ten pins, although their remains c16g our literature for years afterward. If a constituted body has the authority to determine the standing of these claimants to subspecific rank why would it not be the better plan to first submit the specimens with their proposed name, etc., to the committee, and such as are favorably passed upon given out for publication ? I favor, too, set vernacular names based on the true relationship of birds, and I am opposed to calling, for instance, a falcon a sparrow hawk, or a turkey vulture a turkey buzzard simply because the latter names are the most familiar to the gen- eral public. The public needs education not misinformation. As to the Latin names, like many others I would like to see them possessed of a cast iron stability. But as long as certain priority 'hunters are allowed to, and persist in delving into long forgotten, obscure and musty books, to find out what some one called a certain bird in 1847 or some other year, it appears the ceaseless change will continue. And all to what purpose ? The Check-List as it stands is ample for all purposes, I think, and a new canon should declare it permanent, al- lowing no change except cancellation where a supposed species or subspecies is found nonexistent, or change in a generic name where the species is found to have been placed in the wrong genus. And after all what reasons can be given against