Page:Condor4(4).djvu/20

9 6 THE CONDOR [ Vol. iV PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. PACII?IC COAST AVIFAUNA I No. 3 I Check-list of California Birds [ by I Joseph Grinnell I San- ta Clara, California I published by the Cooper Ornithological Club, June 25, x9o2; pp x-92, 2 maps, royal 8 vo. The long-expected State List has appeared in the form of a well compiled aml useful check- list from the pen of Mr. Grinnell. The pains- taking labor involved in digging out and veri- fying records and synonyms is not such as would appeal to most Californians, who, per- haps, age chronically eager for quick results. For this reason the finished Check-list will l?rove all the more acceptable to us, and Mr. Grinnell is to be congratulated on the success- ful completion of the largest and best prepared State List that has yet appeared. Not only is the Check-list full but it is likewise authorita- tive, and it is to be hoped that our club mem- bers will adopt this as a basis for future faunal lists. The paper of ninety-two pages opens with a 'preface explaining the author's stand on ques- tions of nomenclature, and his attitude in regard to the admission of doubtful records and species in poor standing. "In compiling the present list, the author has tried to be reason- ably conservative as regards the admission of species in doubtful standing. In order to be worthy of a place on the State List an 'acci- dental' must have been as a rule secured and preserved so that it can be re-identified when- ever desirable. The more unusual and unex- pected the alleged occurrence of a species, the better the evidence must be of such occurrence before it can be accepted as authentic." For this reason the Hypothetical List is rather long. The sequence of the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list has been followed, but the nomen- clature in many cases "has been remodeled ac- cording to the best of the author's own knowl- edge." The author has taken the commendable stand that" 'A binomial is preferable to a tri- nomial when there is any good excuse for its adoption.' (Ridgway)," and has consequently reduced to binomials a number of names which have usually been written as trinomials. Dis- carding the "slight degree of difference" heresy, and the criterion of intergradation thru individual variation as leading to endless 'confusion, the author has regarded as sub- species only such forms as have been found to intergrade over a continuous geographical area. Consequently all insular and geographically isolated forms are treated as distinct species. To the present reviewer this appears amos sensible course, a course not incompatible with logic and facts, and one which in the pages of the Check-list has proven thoroughly practic able. Such a stand may at first seem radical, but in reality it is only in heed to the very sane warning uttered nearly twenty years ago by Dr. Stejneger. x There has been a marked tendency to reduce binomials to trinomials in recent years, merely on supposition of intergradation, or from "slight degree of difference" qualifications. This, rather than the so-called hair-splitting, has been the chief injury to ornithology. For some time the insidious "degree of difference" cri- terion has held a pernicious place in the affec- tions of some of our systematists, and has proved to be one of the most unscientific theories of the many which must be charged against ornithology. To assume that all species are separated by approximately the same amount of difference is palpably absurd for we know that while some perfectly good species can hardly be told from their nearest relatives, others are subgenerically separated from their closest congeners. Because one species can not readily be told from another does not nec- essarily militate against its validity as a full species. Nor, in the absence of any scientific evidence, doe? it make more excusable the use of a tr[nomial as an easy solution of the diffi- culty. Under this regime the particular mood of the describer and nothing else would deter- mine whether a new species receive a binomial or a trinomial designation. One of the boasts of science has been the minimizing of the per- sonal equation but here we have to do with little else. For the use of trinomials in insular forms, much can be said, and admittedly this is a problem hard to settle. But beyond an apparent advantage in showing relationship (a function which nomenclature can not hope to fulfil) the trinomial possesses no advantage over the binomial. We should not allow mat- ters of personal convenience to obscure what seem to be the real facts. Surely the facts would warrant the binomial here, as in the case of the geographically isolated 'race.' In this case individual variation has been mis- taken for geographical, or has been taken as sufficient evidence of subspecific rank. By adopting a simple rule as a guide the author of the present check-list has tried to root out as many of the spurious trinomials as facts would permit. A salutary course for the future would be the application of Dr. J. A. Allen's golde? ?,ule "the test of intergradation," Should any enthusiastic trinomalist wish to reduce bi- nomials the burden of proof must rest with him. Two colored maps of California, one illus- trating the life zones and the other the faunal areas will be of great use in elucidating the dis- tribution of species, especially for those who are not very familiar with the physiography and climate of this wonderfully diversified state. The life zones are those made familiar I Proc_U. S? Nat. Mus. VII, ?884 p. 78.