70 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
P. nivalis breeds, Messrs. Murdock and Smith, of Lieutenant Ray'sparty, having brought back with them from Point Barrow numerousspecimens of the latter, together with the nests and eggs.The fully adult male may be at once distinguished from that of P.nivalis by the total absence of black except on the terminal third (orless) of the primaries and near the ends of the middle rectrices. In P.nivalis the primaries are black nearly to the base, the aluUTe, primarycoverts, and tertials also black (though bordered with white), the dorsalregion mainly black (wholly black in summer), and the six middlerectrices black to the base. The rusty wash is also much paler in thenew form.In its summer plumage, the entire plumage, except the black quill-tips, would evidently be snow-white, the bill black instead of yellow.The females are distinguished from those of P. nivalis by their muchpaler coloration, with the dark markings far more restricted, and therusty wash of the winter diess much less distinct. All of the four spe-cimens of this sex have the back white, more or less tinged or stainedwith yellowish (more rusty on the scapulars), and narrowly streakedwith black, although these streaks are nearly obsolete in one specimen.The vernacular name of this new species is bestowed in memory ofMr. Charles L. McKay, who sacrificed his life in the prosecution of nat-ural history investigations in Alaska, and in whose collections the newspecies was first noticed. The specific name hyimrhoreus needs no expla-nation.
ON THE USE OF TRINOMINALS IN AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGY.
^ By I^KOIVHARD STEJIVEOEB.Ornithological trinominals, although at present more (jenerally em-ployed in America than elsewhere, are neither an American inventionnor were they first applied in America to the extent which they are nowoccupying in this country.That trinominals for varieties occasionally are found in some earlyworks, even in those of Linnaeus, is of very little significance, althoughPallas came pretty near being a trinomiualist in the modern sense of theword. Nor do I intend in this connection to call attention to the numer-ous trinominals of C. L. Brehm, as he used them in a somewhat differentsense from what we do.The father of modern trinominalism in ornithology was the famousSwedish ornithologist, Carl Sundevall, who in 1840 commenced to treatsystematically the ill-defined species as geographical varieties, whichhe provided with a third name in addition to the specific appellation.Of groups treated by him in that manner may be quoted the generaAcanthis, Budytcs, LagopuSj.Bendroeca and the family Picida\ He him-self styled these varieties " local forms" or " races," as an example of
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 71
which may be enumerated the varieties of Dendroeca petechia, recognizedby him in 18G9 (Ofv. Vet. Akad. Forhandl., 18G9, pp. G07-G09):l>enilroeca petechia
:
a. hartkolcmica.h. cruciana (=ruficapilla Baird).
c. harJjadensis.d. cnbana (=gundhichi Baird).
e. jamaicensis (= petechia Bairtl)./. gallapagensis ( = aureola Gould).g. peruviana fh. aequatorialis f
i. panamensisf (= vieinotiCass).All of which he properly described.He was closely followed by Herman Schlegel, who, in 1844, applied thesystem to all the European birds in his ''Kevue critique des oiseauxd'Europe." In this catalogue he enumerates 489 species, plus 27 sub-species or varieties, the latter designated by trinominals, e.g.:Anthus pratensis rujigularis.2IotacilIa alba higuhris.MotaciUafla va rayi.Motacilla jiava cinereocapilla.Motacilla Jtava melanocephala.Garrulus gknutarius melanocephahis.Stnrnns vulgaris miicolor.Passer domcsticus cisalpinus.TJria grijUe inandtii.From this enumeration it is perfectly clear how "modern" Schlegelwas as early as 1844, not only in adding the subspccific name withoutany connecting word or letter, but also by acknowledging the law ofpriority in the use of the trinominals, which Sundevall failed to do. Forevery 18 binominals this first trinominalistic list of the birds of Europecontained 1 trinominal.From that moment it is difficult to find ornithological wTiters of anyprominence on the continent of Europe who have not, at least occa-sionally, used trinominals, while several authors applied three namesto geographical races quite freely, for instance, Bonaparte, ^liddendorff",V. Schrenck, Malmgren, etc.But the idea of Sundevall and Schlegel was further developed byfaithful followers. In 1801 J. H. Blasius printed in the German lan-guage a list of the birds of Europe for his own private use. The fol-lowing year (18G2) this list of "one of the highest authorities in thisbranch of the science" was reprinted in England with the author's ad-ditions, and edited by Prof. Alfred isewton under the title "A List of theBirds of Europe." This list enumerates 523 species (420 breeding orregularly visiting + 103 accidental visitors), designated by biuomi-.
72 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
nals, besides 92 subspecies designated by trinomiiials aud quadrinomi-nals ; in other words, for every 5| binoraiuals we find 1 tri- or quadri-noininal ; quite a progress since Scblegel's list!A few quotations from this "check-list" will convince us that thetheory of the geographical races and the applications of the rules nowen vogue here in America were thoroughly understood aud employed.
''Falco peregrinuf Brisson.?Eur.
^?. anatum Bp.?Am.y. melanogenys Gld.?Oceauica.6. lyeregrinaior Sund.?Asia.f. minor Schleg.?Afr.Cinclus aquaticus, Briss.?Ceutr. South. Eur.
;5. melanogaster Brhm.? Korth. "y. leucogaster Eversm.
?
" As.d. pallasii Temm.?^. As.Loxia curvirostra L.?Eur.
,'i. americana Wils.?N. Am.L. Jeucoptem Gm.?X. Am., Engl.
,'i. taenioptcra Glog.?X. Eur.Cliaradrius pluviaUs L.? N. Eur.
yJ. virginicm Bk,?X. Am.
y. longipes T.?As."Etc., etc.As already mentioned, in some instances he applies quadrinominals,an example of which may be given here:
^^Budytesjiavus L.?Eur.
a. melanocephalus Lcht.?S. Eur.jS. Tcalemczenckii Andr.?E. S. Eur.6. horealis Sund.?X. Eur.
/5. cinereocapiUus Savi.?Centr. & S. Eur.
?(. HavuH L.?Eur.
c. flaveolus Gld.?Centr. & W. Eur.
/?. campesiris Pall,?E. Eur."Blasius's List of the Birds of Europe was not the first iu which tri-nominals were used, nor was it the last. It was followed by the "Con-spectus Systematicus and Geographicus Avium Europa^aruni, AuctoreAlph. Dubois," which was published in 1871, a year before Coues's Key.
" Varietates climacterica; cum litteris italicis sunt impressie et comitatielittera grpeca." Five hundred aud seventy-five species, designated bybinominals, are enumerated plus 125 "climatic varieties," designated bytriuomiuals, or 1 trinominal for every 4| binominals.In the mean time the American ornithologists had not failed to ai)pre-ciate the advantages, or rather the dire necessity, of trinominals forgeographical races iu many cases. John Cassin is j)robably the firstAmerican writer using trinominals, as he as early as 1854, distinguished
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 73
the races of Bubo virginianvs as follows (Illustr. B. Calif., Tex., etc., p.178) : Bubo virginianusVariety, atlanticus^ [new narnej.Variety, paciftcus, [new name].Variety, arcticus, [B. Arcticus Swains.].Variety, magellanicus, [8. magellanicus Gmel.].Althougli the trinoniinals are rather few in "The Birds of NorthAiDerica," (1858), still that work and that date are of great interest, be-cause they show that Professor Baird, in using them and inventing newones, favored the principle, which, afterwards, on his great authority,was so generally accepted by North American Ornithologists. In fact,the trinominals of present American ornithology can with great propri-ety be said to date from 1858, when that gi'eat work was published, which
still exercises its influence through the "History of North AmericanBirds," an influence strong enough to retain for the present epoch ofAmerican ornithology the name of " the Bairdian Period," and whichhas formed the "American school," if such a term is admissible.Of trinonnnals dating from 1858 may be mentioned:*Tiirdus palhisi var. silens.Pieus villosKS var. major.\i\v. medivs. *var. minor.Bonasa umbellus var. umbeUoides.The principle thus accepted was not discarded in the same author's,unfortunately unfinished, "Eeview of American Birds" (1864-1866),from which we select the following list
:
Thryothorus beunclii, var. bewickii.Thryothoriis beicickii, var. Jeucogaater.Thryothorus beivicMi, var. spilurus.Thryophilus rufalbus, var. rufalbus.Thryophilus rufalbus var. poliopleura.Troglodytes (cdon, var. aztecus.Troglodytes hyemaliSj var. pacificus.Cistothorus 2)alustris^ var. paludicola.Atticora cyanoleucu ^ \ar. montana.It was not long before the example thus set was followed. In Janu-ary, 1865, Henry Bryant, in describing Parus Jmdsonicus, var. Uttoralis,expressed himself thus : " I am inclined myself to consider P. atricapil-lus, s?2)t?)itrionalis, meridionalis, and oecidentaUs, as varieties of onespecies " (Pr. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1865, p. 368), and in the beginning ofthe following year, he said, "The West India Islands possess peculiarforms generally recognized by ornithologists as species, but which it.seems to me more rational, in many instances, to consider as local forms
*We should not forget that Prince Max von Wied also is found guilty of usingtrinominals in that very year, for instance, Rirundo riparia americana, (Jouru. f. Oru.,1858, p. 101).
74 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
or varieties." (Pr. Bo?t. Soc. Xat. Hist., 180G, p. 248.) In the paper inwbicli we find the above words he applied the following triuoniinals
:
Certhiola Jfaveola Ya,r. portoricensis.FringiUa zena Linn. 1758 Var. portoricensis.Icterus dominicensis Var. portoricensis.Icterus dominieensis Var. hypomeJas Dubns.tSaurothera vieiUoti Var. rufescens.In his additional ''List of Birds seen at the Bahamas" (Pr. Bost. Soc.Nat. Hist., xi, pp. 63 seqv.) he nses:Psittacus coUarius var. hakamensis.Tyrannula stulida var. Incaysiensls.Mimus polyylottus var. hakamensis.And in a paper on Birds of St. Douiiugo (1. c, pp. 89, seqv.), the fol-lowing triuoniinals:Tyrannula stolida var. dominicensis.Tyrannula carribtca var. liispaniolensis.Turdus ardosiaceus var. portoricensis.Fringilla zena var. marchii.Hirundo euchrysea, var. dominicensis.So great was the power of the example, that even at that early datefew oi' the ornithologists could resist using?although more or less spo-radically?trinominals, an eft'ort especially visible in the youuger gen-eration, which may titly be termed " Baird's school." It is unnecessaryin the present paper to go into details, but a few instances may be men-tioned.In 18GG Dr. Cones, in a paper on " the Ornithology of Arizona Terri-tory" (Pr. Phil. Acad., 18GG), instituted several trinominals:Chrysomitris [Pseudomitris) mexicanus. A. var. mexicanns. B. var.columhianus. C. var. arizona.Mr. Eidgway (Pr. Phil. Acad., 1870), enumerates the following Amer-ican forms ofTinnunculus sparveriusvar. sparverius.var. austral is.var. isahellinus.var. dominicensis.var. ? cinnamominus.In fact, trinominals were in the air infecting all, so that we find themwhere least expected. They make their way into Mr. Lawrence's pa-pers on birds from South and Central America, Mexico, and the islandsof Tres Marias and Socorro (1871), partly as manuscript names of Pro-fessor Baird, partly without his name appended, for instance
:
Conurus holochloriis var. brecipes Baird, M. S.Buteo borealis var. montana Nutt.Falco peregrinus vsir. nigriceps Cass.Uadrosiomus aglaice var. affinis (Elliot).Haliplana fuliginosa var. crissalis Baird, M. S.
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 15The trinominals in Dall and Bauiiister's pajier on the Birds of Alaska(Tr. Chicg. Acad. I, 18G9,) rest also evidently mainly on ProfessorBaird's authority.Buteo swainsoni var. insignatus.Pyrrhula coccinea var. cassini Baird.Pelidna alpina var. americana Cass.Bern icla canadensis var. occidentalis Baird.But while thus most of the American ornithologists of that date hadtheir attention drawn to the establishment of varieties or local races,one of them, Prof. J. A. Allen, looked at ihe other side, pointed out thevalue of the species, and determined the difference between the speciesand the subspecies. Although no trinominals are found iii his greatwork " On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida" (Bull. Mus.Comp. Zool. II, No. 3, 1871, ])]). lGl-450), still that article promotedtrinominalism in America more than any before by treating the subspe-cies as synonyms under the species, applying to the latter "the test ofintergradation." It is his great merit to have formulated this principle,without which Sundevall's and Schlegel's idea would not have gainedso easy a victory in America. Subspecies are distinguishable formswhich intergrade, while species do not intergrade : Here was the cluefound, here the guidance to a methodical and consistent trinominalism.Others have tried to define similar principles, involving them in obscuretheoretical and philosophical phrases, while he, a true and sound
" American," fixed the oul}' practical rule in a few and simple words.The effect of his work in promoting trinominalism is very patent inthe review of it written by Dr. Elliott Coues (American Naturalist,.June, 1871, pp. 3Gl:-373), as shown by the following quotation (p. 371)
:
" But we insist upon the advisability, iii the present stage of our scienccyof recognizing geographical and some other differentiations hy iiame,'^and in the apj)ended foot-note he remarks: " Not necessarily a 'specific'name, but some one additional word, with or without the sign ' var.,'that shall stamp the form we wish to isignalize. Ferhaps this would bea judicious middle course, most apjdicable to the present state of thescience."We have now in our sketch reached about the year 1871, This yearand the next following ones were marked by an unusual activity on theside of our ornithologists; new countries were disclosed, and new mate-
rial was coming in rapidly, and the large series now accumulating in themuseums proved intergradation between many forms which had beenregarded as valid species.At this same time two great works on North American ornithologywere in preparation, Baird, Brewer, and Eidgway's " History of NorthAmerican Birds," and Dr. Elliott Coues's "Key."It is almost a matter of course that from what is said above trinom-inals should become a prominent feature of both these works. The sys-tematic application of trinominals to the whole North American ornis
76 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.had simply become a uecessity. Coues's "Key," as the less voluminouswork, was published (1872) before the '' History," thus becoming thefirst list of iSTorth American birds in which trinomiuals are generallyand systematically applied. In the "Key" we meet 1 trinominal forevery 4.0 binominals.The history of trinominalism in North American ornithology afterthat date is familiar to every one. We all know how it, like many nov-elties in the beginning, was carried too far, good species being reducedto varieties on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence whatever, themere supposition of iutergradation, in many cases, being enough to bringthe change about, while a more recent time has witnessed a sound re-action and a more rigorous application of Allen's golden rule, " the testof intergradation " being now thus interpreted, that no reduction of aspecies shall take place unless the intergradation is clearly established.In that, as in so many other respects,* E. Ridgway's Nomenclator of1881 was a great progress. The proi)ortion in the latter between tri-nomiuals and binominals is as 1 to 4^.In order to show how close the American trinomiualists come to theirEuropean predecessors, the proportional numbers are put together inthe following table:ScLlegel (List of European Birds, 1844) . . 1 trinominal to 18 binominals.Blasius (List of European Birds, 18G2).. 1Dubois (List of European Birds, 1871) ... 1Cones (Key, 1872) 1Eidgway (ISTomenclator, 1881) 1It isi)lain from the above that the ornithological trinominalism cannotbe spoken of as " the American idea."But also in other directions Sundevall has exercised a great influenceou the so-called "American school." He was the vigorous and persistentadvocate of Linnteus's tenth edition (1758) as the starting point of zoo-logical nomenclature, a view now accepted by almost all American or-nithologists, and it is his system?amended and somewhat changed byhis countryman. Prof. W. Lilljeboig?which is the arrangement adoptedby the Smithsonian Institution, and still met with, with some altera-tions in the details, in the publications of Cones and of Eidgway, andconsequently of most other American writers. I do not see how thename " the American school" can be maintained in view of these facts.Nevertheless there is a feature in which the American writers after1858 differ from their European brethren, both English and Continental,and it is this ])eculiarity which led me on a i)revious page to adopt thename " the Bairdiau school," as Professor Baird most certainly was theoriginator of this particular feature. I shall try to express what Imean by giving an example. When treating of two forms and their
* As for instance, in doing away ?with the cumbersome " var." between the specificand subspecitic name.
u
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 77intergradation, a Europeau oruitliologist will usually express himselfthus : " I have before me a specimen which in every respect is interme-diate between the two alleged species, thus proving them to be onlydifferent stages [or varieties] of the same specific type." The Ameri-can, on the other hand, will say : " I have before me a specimen, No.?of the collection, an adult male, shot on the of , and.collected bj' Mr. at , which, by presenting such and suchcharacters, is intermediate," etc. In the first case jou have to take theman's word that there is such an intermediate link; in the second youcan trace the statement back to its source, you can control and criti-cise, or, in other words, in the European school you have to deal withthe person, in the " Bairdian " with the fact, the specimen ; the differ-ence between the two and the scientific soundness of the latter processis too plain to require further comment.It has been said by one of the prominent promotors of trinominalismin this country that the great danger of the system is the opportunityfor immature specialists to name as subspecies forms too slightlydifferentiated to require any such ibrmal recognition, and that conse-quently our lists of synonyms would be overburdened.To me it seems as if this prediction is not warranted by past ex-perience. In Europe the system has existed, although not on avery extensive scale, for forty years or more ; still, if we examine thesynonymies of European birds, we will see that with the exception ofthe trinomiuals of C. L. Brehm, who was not an immature specialist,and whose trinomiuals do not belong here?very few trinominals mixwith the formidable lists of synonymous binominals. The Americansynoujmical lists show the same thing, because the rather numerous-trinomiual synonyms are mostly put down to show the different " com-binations" of the three names. We will have the same result if we goover the number of subspecies described in America during the ten yearsbetween 1871 and 1881. Consulting Eidgway's "List of untenablespecies and races of North American birds described since 1858," in his
" Nomenclator," p. 80, we find that 11 trinominals are untenable, whileof species described during the same period 9 binominals do not holdgood. It is safe to say, however, that if trinominals had not come intouse several of the forms described as trinominals would have enteredour lists of synonyms as pure binominals. It is further i)lain that thepercentage of the untenable trinominals is vastly smaller than that ofthe binominals, as during those ten years an overwhelming majority ofthe new forms described consisted of trinominals. The untenable tri-nominals (according to the list quoted) rest on the following authori-ties : Baird; Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway; Cooper; Coues; Ridgway;of these Cooper is guilty of only one.The danger, it will be seen, is not very formidable. Nor do I thinkthat a swelling of the synonymies is of any real harm to science; itcauses some inconvenience to those who have to compile or copy those
78 PKOCEEDINGS OF tfNlTEI) STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
lists, but tbo iiarm done to science itself can be but slight. It is a pe-culiarity of the construction of an ornithologist's heart that it takes agreat pleasure in " sitting clown" upon the new forms described by anyfellow-ornithologists. In fact there are writers who think it more inter-esting to reduce names than to establish new ones. Under such cir-cumstances the untenable forms will soon be disposed of and be giventheir proi)er place in the synonymies.The trinominal system involves another danger, however, which maybe injurious to the true interest of science. I mean the untimely reduc-tion of good and distinct species to mere races or varieties. Not oidydoes it cause great instability and uncertainty in our nomenclature, butit tends to prejudice the forms if once reduced, by an authority, on in-sulhcient evidence. We still see almost every day undoubted species,the distinctness of which has long ago been proved over and over again,designated by the cumbersome and misleading trinominals. Here is realdanger, real harm! Fortunately, however, the reaction has commencedin this country, but in Europe the latest and most eloquent advocateof trinominals tries to continue the work of Blasius.Tlie necessity or desirability of trinominals has of late been questionedby nonprofessionalists. The replies in " TlieAuk " have been so thoroughon that side of the question which they have treated that little needsto be said by me. But I have an imi)ression that the inquirers have notgot all their questions answered nor all their doubts solved.The above question is in reality a threefold one. (1.) Is it necessaryto recognize those slight differences which are seen in the so-called localraces ? (2.) Is it necessary to have them designated by a separatename I (3.) Why is the trinominal designation to be preferred"?(1.) To the first (piestion I would say that it is of vital imi^ortance toornithology as a science that these minor differences be recognized. Itmay be well enough for tbose whose chief object is to label specimens incollections and museums to5gnore these difficult cases in which the identi-fication has to be done by a traiued eye and a trained mind, but it mustbe observed that such persons have no idea of what the science requires,nor are their services to science of i)articular value. It is confessedly,in many cases, very difficult to distinguish between two closely-alliedforms, but it is as important in ornithology that the differences be notoverlooked as it is in any branch of the invertebrates, although nobodythinks of giving up specific distin(;tions among the small animals, be-cause an amateur or a dilettante is unable to tell animalcules of oneorder from those of another. I am indebted to my friend 11. Kidgwayfor being permitted to quote the following abstract of a manuscript ofhis, which seems to me to illustrate more fully what I have hinted atabove :
" The most imi)ortant advantage of trinominals is that they serve asconvenient ' handles for facts,' in providing for the naming of formswhicli 2?ce known not to possess the requirements of true species, but
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM 79
wliicli it is equally evident demand, in the interests of science, properrecognition. Without triuominals it would be necessary to either namesuch forms as species, and thus convey an idea of their rank which theperson bestowing the name knows to be false, or else ignore them alto-gether, which wonld be plainly a dereliction of duty and a positive im-pediment to the progress of the science. Every local or geographicalvariation of size, form, or color, no matter how slight, if reasonably con-stant, is just so much evidence affecting the question of the derivationof species, and no excuse for the exclusion of such evidence can beallowed. The inability of a i)erson who has not access to specimens forcomparison to discriminate between slightly differentiated forms?orthe professed inability of the professional, whose ideas are "inspired,"and who therefore finds it unnecessary to descend to the drudgery ofhandling specimens?is not a matter to be considered. As well mightone become a ])hysician, and be able to diagnose correctly any disease,by simply having a taste for the medical profession and no opportunityto devote his time ajid thought to the subject?or, on the other hand,having the opportunity and means, yet discarding all the essential aidsto his knowledge."The importance of distinguishing between even slightly differentiatedlocal forms may be illustrated by an example.vSuppose we knew a species the breeding range of which included theEastern and Middle States of North America and the West India Isl-andis. Suppose, also, that we knew that it occurs during the winter inthe West Indian Islands (the species consequently being resident there),in Eastern Mexico, and Central America. Considering the migration ofsuch a species, we would face several important questions : Do the birdsliving in the Eastern States during the summer pass the winter on theWest India Islands, and on which ? Or do they travel round the Giilfjuniting with those froni the Mississippi Valley in going- down to Mexie(>and Central America ! It will be seen that the solution of the questionsis rather difficult. How are we going to tell the birds coming down inwinter from the States from those remaining the whole ye'ar in theAntilles? We might establish observers all along the coast to be onthe lookout where the migrants were wending their way, but I am afraidthe evidence wonld be hard to obtain, as even the whole A. O. U. "com-mittee on migration," with all its observers, might look in vain for thepassing birds. Or we might catch lots of the latter, nml- Lave themmarked by differently colored ribbons, or the like. Trne,.if we couldX)Ossibly do it, the question might be solved in that way. I think, how-ever, we will agree that the project is not practicable. Bi? if natureherself had marked the birds, then we could tell just j?s well! If wecould possibly dislinguish those living the whole year in the AntilleanIslands from those breeding in the East, and the latter ap^ain from theinhabitant of the Mississippi Valley, no matter how slight the distinc-tion, no matter how expert the identifyer needs be, only let ii> be yo?s)
80 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM.
ble to distinguish them, then ^ve woukl have tlie material for the solu-tion of a very important question in ornithology. There needs be noone on the spot to be able to distinguish them, but there should be col-lectors billing to furnish the expert with the material. We will, inorder to show what we mean, furthermore suppose that collections oflarge series made during the winter were turned in to the NationalMuseum from several of the Antilles, from the eastern coast of Mexico,and from Yucatan. Suppose the Antillean specimen belong to thefoim residing there during summer, and to that only, except the collec-tion made during the migrating season at the western point of Cuba,which, like winter birds from Yucatan, belonged to the form of theEastern Stares, and finally that the winter birds from Eastern Mexicowere identical with those from the Mississippi Valley.Anybody can now draw the conclusions, can now understand howextremely important the distinguishing of nearly allied races really is.It has been said that these are "small things," but it must not be for-gotten that in science nothing is small which leads to finding the truth,, andthat the great things are only the accumulation and the products of thesmall ones. To neglect '' small things'''' is to neglect science itself!The time when our museums were content with having a few specimensof each species is a past one, and at the present date they require largeseries. It will therefore be seen that it matters very little if in a cer-tain local form the number of "pure-bred" or "typical" specimensshould only amount to, say, 75 per cent., as these will be fully sufficientto recognize the form with certainty.So important is the minute distinction of local forms, that the solutionof the whole question of bird migration depends upon it. Prof. JohanAxel Palmen, the prominent tracer of the traveling routes of the birdsand the great authority on all questions relating to their migration, theauthor of "Die Zugstrassen der Vdgel," does not call these races geo-graphical or local formSj but "the migrating route forms."(2.) The second question was whether it is necessary to have theseslightly differentiated forms designated by a separate name, admitting,as \ve now do, the necessity of recognizing them.Before giving a direct answer I will make a counterquestion. No-body thinks for a moment of discarding the separate names of undeniedspecies, the characters of which are just as minute as those of a sub-species, provided only they are absolutely constant. What is now theolssect of naming these by a separate appellation, forms which i^erhaps.a^8 of less interest than a great many of the so-called subspecies'?The whole thing amounts to this, that if we do not give these forms-a separate name, then we will have to use a long phrase to express whichform we mean. The discarding of separating subspecies by separate-names would bring them and their nomenclature just in the same condi-tion as were the specific names before Linuicus. We designate the sub-species and species by a separate name for the same reason.
PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 81
Vol. Ill, ]\o. 6. Washington, D. C. July 1, 1884.
(3.) Finally we will have to consider the question why the triuominaldesignation is to be jireferred.I need not repeat the many good reasons admirably set forth by Prof.J. A. Allen in the first number of "The Auk," but I will simply statewhy I have been of late converted to trinominalism. The questionwith me hinged on the consideration that in all probability we wouldhave to give up the hope of seeing these forms recognized at all if wewould not consent to having them designated differently from the species.There are still many ornithologists who would rather suffer the local racesto be extinguished from our books than they would allow them to carrythe "sacred" binomiuals. To them the subspecies are pariahs, whichmust not be admitted to the " rank " of the aristocratic species. I, my-
self, thfnk better of the poor subspecies, believing that scieuce in time,when they are fully understood, will derive great benefit from their rec-ognition, and consequently I accept the cumbersome trinominals ratherthan to see them go around without any name at all.I regard the trinominals as a nuisance, but as a very necessary nui-sance, unfortunately. However, I find I can get along with them verywell.Before dismissing the subject I should like to call the attention ofAmerican ornithologists to the fact that there are other conditions whichmay affect the differentiation of subspecific (first, and afterwards specific)forms than the geographical distribution of the present day. And inorder to learn just what these conditions are it is very important to havethe subspecies distingnished. The geographical range of a bird is byno means a very stable thing, and may change comparatively rapidly,for many reasons. It may therefore be that some of the variations dateback to a?perhaps not so very?distant time wlieu the range of theform was one quite different from the present one. The fact that thedifferentiation in a certain form does not agree with what we concludeit ought to do comi)ared with other forms of simihir geographical dis-tribution must not lead us to disregard their differences.Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D. (J., May 12, 1884.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SCAROID FISHES FROM HAVANA AND KEYWEST, INCLUDING FIVE NEW SPECIES.B> OAVID S. JORDAN and JOiliEPII SWAIN.In a recent collecting tour to Havana, Cuba, and Key West, Florida,Professor Jordan obtained a considerable number of Scaroid fishes, rep-resenting fourteen species. Seven of these were secured at Key WestProc. Nat. Mus. 84 6