Page:Condor3(2).djvu/23

Mar., ?9ot I THE CONDOR 51 labeled facts to the sum of kllowledge as well as the astronomer with his new telescopes dis- cover new stars and the histologist with his new methods of preservation find unexpected conditions? A name is called a handle to a fact; and it might be argued that if the handle becomes too slippery to grasp it loses its usefulness. There is another side to this however, for even a slippery handle may be held firmly by a strong or practiced hand, and if the facts be worth grasping, is it not more profitable to have trained hands for slippery handles than to have no handles and lose sight of significant facts? "The importalice of determining with the ut- most exactness the geographical variations of birds in further elucidating the laws of evolu- tion by euviron:nent" certainly cannot be over- estimated. Practically all that is known of this subject has been accomplished by careful sys- tenlatists, splitters possibly, who with large series ofspecinlens have conscientiously worked out problems which in many cases could not possibly be appreciated by equally acute work- ers having few specimens from limited locali- ties. Would it then advance knowledge of this subject to promulgate a doctrine that characters not convincing ill a single specimen should be disregarded. A few mistakes now and then lnay llot be more harmful than otherwise, for in rectifying them a better appreciation of the facts is always gained and llew lines of investi- gation are often started. Fronl the beginlling of systeumtic zoological work mistakes have been lnade, but if this were to deter workers from entering the field, progress would be ex- ceedingly slob'. The mistakes which were made in the days of 'lureping' were certainly more egregious than any the 'splitters' have made, and it can hardly be gainsaid that of the two extremes, splitting is the cue which tends to the most careful work and the keeuest ap- preciation of nature's facts. If the great army of amateur ornithologists cannot keep pace with the technical systematists there is still nothing in the nature of the case which will illterfere with the very important studies which they are making of the life histories of our birds. in publishing the results of his work the ornithologist who does not have access to large collections may choose to subordinate subspecific names by printing them in small type or referring to them collectively under each species and still the value of his contribu- tions to distribution or life history is not nec- essarily impaired. If it is impossible to draw a mean bet?eell 'splitters' and 'lumpers', there ought to be room for each to work in his own sphere. The foregoing remarks are made in no con- troversial spirit whatever, but entirely in the hope that they may elicit further discussion of questions which must be of considerable concern to all who are interested or working in systematic zoology. WILFRED H. OSGOOD, ANENT POSSESSIVE BIRD NAMES. "//e not the first b.? whom the new is tried, .?r yet the last to cast the old aside." EDITORS OF THE CONDORi--YOU will per- haps permit me once more, through the medium of your paper, to open the question of the use of common bird names. The ques- tion which I raise this time is not of common names rs. scientific names, but has to do with the changes which have been rung on some of our trivial names. The most radical change is that adopted by the Biological Survey and first used by them in North American Fauna No. I6. This is the dropping of the '"s" in such names as Townsend's Warbler making Town- send Warbler. This at first sight looks pecu- liar and in such names as Gray Tanager and Brown Song Sparrow one might be led to sus- pect these birds of being respectively gray and brown, but this is not a serious objection. The points in favor of the chauge are stated in a letter from I)r. Merriam, dated December ?2, of which the following is a part: "i would state that lny practice of dropping the '"s" in the common names of species de- rived from the names of persons is based oil two things: (x) The fact that the species are llot in any way the property of tile persons whose names they bear, but are merely named in honor of these persons; (2) The modern tendency in similar cases in other departnlents of science. You are aware of course that the National Board on Geographical Names has for many years abandoned the use of possessives in all geographical names, as Lassen Butte, not Lassen's Butte, Hudson Bay, not Hudso?l'S Bay, amt so on. Similarly the Forestry peo- ple in their catMogue and checklist of forest trees of the United States have dropped the possessive, using Parry pinion, not Parry's pinion, Jeffrey pine, not Jeffrey's pine, Coulter pine, not Coulter's pine, Englenlaml spruce, not Englelllann's spruce, and so on to the end of the list. Alnong botanists the same tendency is notable, and it occured to inc that there was no particular reason why we should stand at the tail of the procession." it ?night be added in favor of the simpler form of name that there is a slight saving of time and space. Hudson Bay is shorter and simpler than Hudson's Bay and just as specific. The same is true of all personal names either botanical or zoological. I trust, Mr. Editors that you will find it desirable to adopt this idea for THE CONDOR. Personally I take little interest in the matter, common names being altogether unreliable, but as there is considerable difference of opinion among our ?nembers, it seems well to brillg the subject before the Club as a whole. There is also SOlne variation in names of