OCR Text |
Show 1896.] RULES or ZOOLOGICAL N O M E N C L A T U R E . 315 reference to locality. The students of geographical variation in America, particularly those of Mammals and Birds, may have gone a little into the extreme in recognizing subspecies, but there can be no question that the phenomenon occurs, and is well worthy of record under a name of some sort. The British forms of the Coal- Tit and the Marsh-Tit, which have been named Parus britannicus and Parus dresseri, appear to m e to be good instances of subspecies. I should propose to call them Parus ater britannicus and Parus palustris dresseri, while the corresponding forms of the continent should be termed Parus ater typicus and Parus palustris typicus when they are spoken of in the restricted sense only. In ordinary cases, however, it is sufficient to say Parus ater and Parus palustris without any reference to the subspecies. To give these slight and in some cases barely recognizable variations the same rank as is awarded to Turdus musicus and Turdus viscivorus seems to m e to be highly undesirable, and the recognition of subspecies indicated by trinomials gives us an easy way out of the difficulty. Finally I may be permitted to say that in questions of priority, as in everything else, it is the extreme men that lead us into difficulties, and that have made the very mention of " priority " distasteful to some of our best workers in Zoology. Some ardent spirits seem to take a pleasure in inventing excuses for alterations in the best and most long-established names without considering, and without even caring, whether subsequent writers will consent to follow them. More moderate systematists are wise enough to let names remain as they are, unless there is an absolute necessity for making a change. In the case of many of the names of the older authors, which we are invited to associate sometimes with one species and sometimes with another, it is often simply a matter of opinion or, I may say, conjecture as to which out of half-a-dozen species they were intended to refer. Accipiter korshun of S. G. Gmelin is a noted instance of this sort. It was first resurrectionized in 1874 by Dr. Sharpe as the proper name of the Black Kite. Other authors have referred it to the Golden Eagle, and even, I believe, to one of the Owls. Surely it is better to consign such an indefinite term as this to the limbo of unrecognizable synonyms. In reviving the name Anser fabalis for the Bean-Goose-a term which has slept in peace ever since it was invented by Latham in 1785- we must allow that one of our leading ornithologists had better grounds to go upon. There can be no question that Latham translated the name of " Bean-Goose" into Latin as " Anser fabalis." At the same time there can be little doubt that he did not consider that in doing this he was inventing a new specific term for that well-known bird, which, like everybody else for the last 110 years, he continued to call Anser segetum. It is surely sufficient to quote such uncertain names amongst our synonyms without adopting them as definite designations of familiar species. It is, I repeat, the extremist and the sensationalist, who strive to astonish us by carrying out the law of priority to its '• bitter end," that have caused the disgust which many of us feel at the mere mention of priority in nomenclature. |