Page:Condor20(6).djvu/22

216 THE CONDOR Vol. XX personal opinion upon which no unanimity has been reached, even between acknowl- edged authorities of similar schools of thought. The discrepancies between the findings of the A. 0. U. Committee, Ridg- way and some of the Pacific Coast authori- ties, is demonstration enough of this. Phrases such as "much browner", "distinctly larger", or "comparatively longer", abound; yet when demonstrated by specimens, they are often such as can be seen only by the most careful comparison of a large series under special light conditions, and often are only average characters not shared by a majority of the race, and leaving many in- dividual specimens unrecognizable except by geography. Occasionally even, the most characteristically marked members of one form hail from the headquarters of another. Many of these minute differences undoubt- edly exist; some are only recognizable to supernormal perceptions, while others are probably the result of comparing insuffi- cient or uncharacteristic material. The fact that experts of supposedly equal au- thority arrive at opposed conclusions on viewing similar or even identical material, indicates that subspecific determination is not an exact science. Those who do not claim infallibility either in perception or judgment, may well qualify their decisions as personal opinion rather than indisputable facts. Mr. Swarth complains of "dribbling pro- tests" and "deprecatory remarks directed against many subspecies now quite univer- sally recognized by bird students". I dare to take exception to the statement regard- ing the universality of the recognition ac- corded many or any of the forms in ques- tion. In fact I venture to state that there are few racial forms that meet with quite universal acceptance. At any rate there have been in the past, and probably still are, many forms that have been generally accepted only because no one seriously questions them. However, the "dribbling protests" and "deprecatory remarks", inas- much as they are not expressions of mere querulous complaint, but aim to reflect the evidence as it appears to the writer, should add rather than subtract from conclusions, especially when they are contrary to those generally received. Reflecting as they do the basis of the judgment derived from them, they should be preferable to bare dog- matic decisions. In the example quoted by Mr. Swarth, the Goshawk, I stated all that I was justified in assuming, i.e., that young birds are more coarsely vermiculated than older ones. The facts are, that in a con- siderable series of these birds, all specimens with any remnants of striped juvenility in their plumage are, irrespective of geogra- phy, coarsely marked on the breast. I thought this was suggestive enough to men- tion, as explanation of my refusal to recog- nize it as a subspecific character. It will be noted that the western race is not whol- ly rejected. It is stated that there are indi- cations of differentiation, but they are not deemed constant enough, or marked enough, in British Columbian specimens to warrant subspecific separation, and the possibility of the existence of a well marked race elsewhere, say in Washington or Cali- fornia, is not disputed. Others who regard any perceptible variation as sufficient grounds for racial separation, or have rea- sons for deciding that age does not explain the difference in vermiculation, are at lib- erty to form other opinions. They are cer- tainly able to do so more intelligently with the data included, than from a bald dog- matic statement. The whole it seems to me goes to the limit of caution and deference to possibilities and ?o the opinions of oth- ers, without the sacrifice of personal judg- ment. If this is a fault, I plead guilty. The charge is made that many records are useless to any student of distribution without a re-examination of the material. This may be true, but I think to a less ex. tent than in the majority of lists that are received without remark, and the very things that make it less true, bring forth the criticism. In few lists will Mr. Swarth accept everything just as it is written, when they disagree with his own conceptions. I recognize this, and give him every oppor- tunity for translating my standards into his, yet he objects. More details might have been given, but the heading on every other page, "Summary Report", is excuse for condensation and brevity. These are summary reports, and preliminary in char- acter, not final studies, and the author feels at liberty to reverse his findings any time additional data warrants it. In the case of the single trinomial cited by Mr. Swarth, Hybrid Flicker, Colasres au- ratus ca?er, that is the result of a regretable but obvious typographical error, the omis- sion of the hybrid sign (+) between the specific names, that slipped through the proof reading. Being in the field at the time, I was unable t? attend to this import- ant duty myself. P. A. TAVERNER, Museum ?ological Sur. vcy? Ottawa? Ontario, August 19? 1918.