Editorials

39 surveys in 1850 brought considerable col- lections of birds from the western United States, that we learned that many birds of the more arid west were decidedly different from their representatives in the more humid east. In most instances of this kind we at first had only two forms, an eastern and a western, but subsequent exploration added to the material available for study, and it was discovered that every region possess- ing marked physiographic and climatic characters had races peculiar to itself, and for the first time the laws of geographic va- riation, or of evolution by environment, be- came evident. This is one of ornithologs most valuable contributions to philosophic natural history; an epoch-making discovery the practical application of which, in the vain attempt to definitely name the indeh- nite, has led us into our present difficulties. Thus it has happened that of the r,o68 birds included in the 1895 edition of the A. O. U. 'Check-List,' 300 are ranked as subspecies, or, in other words, a subspecies for every two and a half species. But the end is not yet. Since 1895, ^^'^^ seventy so-called ' new ' forms have been described an<l with each fresh revision of a variable group the ' splitting ' becomes finer and we are afflicted with added names the applica- tion of which is doubtful. As a matter of fact, specimens are no longer separated from specimens, but series of specimens from series of specimens, and herein lies the evil of splitting as it is at present practiced. We have long passed the stage in our study of the climatic variations of North American birds, when we ^hl)ul(l expect to discover a subspecies so marked that its characters would be conviiiciiig in a single specimen. In fact, large series are usually necessary to make apparent the differences on which it is proposed to separate one bird from another. Placed side by side, it be- comes evident that one row of birds, as a roiu, is more or less unlike the other row, and the cumulatie differences of perhaps thirty birds are, in describing such fornix, as- cribed to one, whereas, to a <legree, in re- solving the series of tliirtv birds into it-. <-omponent individuals, tin- aliic of liu- characters attributed to the new Inrni are in effect divided by thirty, that is, theoreti- cally, are evenly distributed among the thirty birds of the series. The probabili- ties are, of course, against so even a divi- sion of differences, but the series will, un- doubtedly, contain birds in which the char- acters attributed to the form are almost wholly wanting. A case in point is fur- nished by an ambitious splitter, who admits that a series of thirty-six specimens " barely suggested" differences, on which, however, with the assistance of eleven additional specimens, he proposes to found a new subspecies! Now, while we cannot over- estimate the importance of determining with the utmost exactness the geographic varia- tions of birds in further elucidating the laws of evolution by environment, we maintain that the recognition by name of such minute and inconstant differences as we have indicated is a perversion of the uses of zoological nomenclature and a menace to the best interests of ornithology. The layman, whether or not he is in- clined to sneer at the closet naturalist, bows to his authority and accepts without ques- tion his ruling, whether it be a new name or a new nomenclature. But if we do not mistake the signs the lay ornithologist has become so confused in a vain effort to keep pace with the innovations of the profes- sional, that he is on the border of revolt against what, in the main, he esteems to be a needless juggling with names. Fortimatelv, there is a court to wiiit ii we may appeal in this difficulty. The Ameri- can Ornithologists' Unioji, appreciating the need of revision of the work of too enthu- siastic systematists, has a standing com- mittee, whose duty it is to pass on the species and subspecies of North American birds, which have been described since its last meeting, with the laudable object of ex- cluding those which seem unworthy of rec- ognition by name. We appeal, tiien, to this committee to protect us from the undue development of a practice winch is bringing svstematic ornithology and some systematic ornithologists into disrepute and. iv reii- tlering accurate identification impossible, jiroving a needless source of discouragenunt to students of birds.