Page:Condor4(1).djvu/21

 THE CONDOR ] Vol. IV PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED. RIDGWA'$ "BIRDS OF NORTH AND MIDDLE AMERICA." The Birds I of I North and Middle America: [ A Descriptive Catalogue I of the t Higher Groups, Genera, Species, and Sub-species of Birds ! Known to Occur in North America, from the I Arctic Lands to the Isthmus of Panama, I the West Indies and Other Islands ] of the Caribbean Sea, and the lGalapagos Archipelago. ] By ] Robert Ridgway, [ Curator, Division of Birds. [ --I Part I. I Family Frin- gillidleThe Finches. I --[ Washington; I Goverumeut Printing Office, I I9 oI. pp.i-xxx, -75, pll. I-XX. (= Bulletin No. 50, U.S. Nat. Mus.) The first part of this long-expected work reached us early in November; and it has no doubt been examined by American ornith- ologists with more eagerness than any other bird volume which has appeared for many years. For here we expect to find the latest views of a man who has done more systematic work with American birds than any one else now living. Mr. Ridgway states his attitude in the "Preface" somewhat as follows: Accepting evolution as an established fact, there cannot be any gaps in the series of exist- ing forms, except such as are caused by the loss of intermediate types. If we had the power of retrospection all would be found to converge to common aucestors at remote periods. There is therefore in nature no such definite groups of individuxls as a species, genus or higher group; and boundaries of the arbitrarily determined groups can only be fixed at gaps where connecting forms have disap- peared. It thus happens thatgroupsnomiually of the same rank are often based on very unequal characters. All decisions in this re- gard must always vary more or less with per- soual opinion. In regard to species and subspecies, two forms are treated as distinct species, if no geographical intergrades can be found to exist; otherwise the trinomial is used. But obviously, when closely related insular forms are to be treated, this rule fails, and here the author says that individual judgment comes into play, and the distinction made must be more or less arbitrary. How far intermediate forms should be rec- ognized by name, depends on the observer's ability to discern differences and estimate the degree of their constancy. And it is intimated that the future will find much finer distinc- tions sought out than now thought of. In the present work the author is governed only by his own judgment in this respect. "Iu all eases it has been the author's desire to express exactly the facts as they appear to him in the light of the evidence examined, without any regard whatever to preconceived ideas,'":"'** and without consideration of the inconvenience which may result to those who are inclined to resent innovations***. This question of species and subspecies and their nice discrimination is not the trivial matter that some who claim a broader view of biological science affect to believe. It is the very foundation of more advanced scientific work." "Satisfactory decisions affecting the status of described but still dubious forms is a ques- tion both of material and investigation, and the author holds that no conclusion in such a matter should be accepted unless based upon an amount of material and careful investigation equal to. that bestowed by the original de- scriber." All of which seems to me very rea- sonable, and just now particularly pertinent! Turning to the body of the book, we find that Mr. Ridgway starts out by drawing a dis- tinction between two "different kinds of ornithology: Syslematic or sciettific, and pop- ular." Under the former he would include only such matter as pertains to "the structure and classification of birds, their synonymies and technical descriptions." "The latter treats of their habits. songs, nesting, and other facts pertaining to their life-histories." This does not seem to me a fair discrimination. One is led at once to believe that "po)ular" ornith- ology as here understood is unscientific; and that systematic ornithology alone is scientific! This queer idea is further emphasized by the author's statement that "systematic ornith- ology, being a component part o[ Biology. the science of life, is the more instructive and therefore more important." This again I am not satisfied to accept. The author's attitude seems to be reflected in the present vork, where are pages o synonymy, technical de- scriptions and measurements, all-important to the systematist to be sure; but the ecologist finds not a word as to food, habits, nidification or anything that would help him in the study of the relation of the species or race to its environment; or tlle factors governing its dis- tribution, modification of habits and nesting. All of this seems to me of great scientific im- portance, perhaps in line with the discovery of the methods of the origin o[ species. And what about the student of migration, and the economist? Is their ornithological work nec- essarily "popular"? The term "popular" I had previeusly thought toapply tooruithology so simplified into vernacular language and freed from technicalities that it could be appreciated by every-day readers. But I re- volt at the idea that Bendire's "Life Histories" is not scientific! Besides the consideration of the higher groups of all North American birds, which