38 Bird- Lore iltrti Eore A Bi-monthly Magazine Devoted to the Study and Protection of Birds OFFICIAL ORCAN OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETIES Edited by FRANK M. CHAPMAN Published by THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Vol. Ill Published February 1. 1901 No. 1 SUBSCRIPTION RATES Price in the Ignited States, Canada, and Mexico twenty cents a number, one dollar a year, post- age paid. Subscriptions may be sent to the Publishers, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, or 66 Fifth avenue, New york City. Price in all countries in the International Postal Union, twenty-five cents a number, one dollar and a quarter a year, postage paid. Foreign agents, Macmillan AND Company, Ltd., London. COPYRIGHTED, 1901, BY FRANK M. CHAPMAN. Bird-Lore's Motto : A Bird in the Bush is Worth Two in the Hand. A Question of the Day There is a certain type of systematic orriithoiogist to whom ornithology means comparing specimens and solving nomen- clatiiral problems, with the sole and ultimate object of changing the existing names of birds and creating new ones. He is some- times sneeringly designated by the siifficient- unto-himself layman, a 'closet naturalist.' This same supercilious critic is doubtless indebted to the closet naturalist's text-books for most, if not all, of his exact knowledge of birds' names and consequent proper classification of whatever he may have learned of the birds themselves, but with a fine combination of conceit, ignorance, and ingratitude, he loses no opportunity to hurl a figurative stone at the unconscious author of his information. There is, however, another side to this subject; in his endeavor to make plain the relationships of birds, the systematist may go too far. Long familiarity with specimens has so sharpened his appreciation of their differences in size, form, and color, that he is led to lattach undue importance to varia- tions which are barely, if at all, apparent to the untrained eye. The question is, where shall he draw the line in naming these geographical races, or subspecies, as they are termed? It is of course assumed that his investigations are conducted with no undue desire for renown through the exploitation of his own name appended to that of the birds he may describe, but that they are made in the interests of ornithology. 'I'he question may be repeated then, how far may we go in this division and subdi- vision of geographical races and best serve the ends of the study of birds? In publishing a list of North American birds which should harmonize the views of various authorities, the American Orni- thologists' Union raised as its standard the motto: "Zoological nomenclature is a means, not an end, of zocUogical science." That is, before we can study birds we must give to them certain names in order that we may properly label whatever we may learn concerning them and thus render our dis- coveries available to others. It is, or should be, therefore, the object of the systematist to so describe birds that they will be recognizable, thereby preparing the way for further investigation. When, however, he gives names to differences so slight that even experts in his own field cannot with certainty apply the right name to the right bird, it is obvious that he is not serving, but defeating the aims of science. Doubtless the 'splitter,' as this type of systematist is called, would deny that his hypersensitive powers of discrimination had led him to such extremes. Let us, therefore, examine somewhat into his methods. When specimens of our birds first came into the hands of European naturalists, many of them were considered identical with certain European species; but as they increased in collections their characters be- came more definitely understood and being found to differ more or less from Old World forms they were given names of their own (e. g., Cerlhio familiaris Americana, Los/a cur-1'irostra Americana). Though at first these birds, following the customs of the times, were ranked as species, this was virtually the beginning in the subspecific separation of our birds. It was not until the Pacific railroad
