PRINCIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 49 



nal name of rnfa, while others prefer to retain the better known and later 

 more current name rufescens. 



Again: In 1804 a Munia was named Loxia albiventris by Hermann; in 

 1860 Swinhoe named a Crossbill Loxia albiventris. These birds certainly 

 belong to different genera, and there is no fear of their being confounded. 

 But it may be contended (indeed was long since so claimed by Lesson) that 

 Hermann's Loxia albiventris (a Munia) is the true type of the genus Loxia, 

 and that the Crossbills should be called Crucirostra. Others maintain that 

 the latter are the true Loxice. Each view may have advocates, and we shall 

 have two species bearing the name Loxia albiventris, whereas the rule, 

 " Once a synonym," etc., at once debars the later name. 



Again : Temminck, in 1828, named a bird Procellaria temiirostris (PL Col, 

 587). In 1839 Audubon named a bird Procellaria temiirostris (Orn. Biog., 

 V., p. 333). By many authors these two species are referred to different gen- 

 era, the former being regarded as a Puffnus. Schlegel, among others, con- 

 sidered them congeneric, and changed (Cat. Mus. P. B., Procellarige, p. 22) 

 the temiirostris of Audubon to smit'ii. In doing this he was of course fully 

 justified, from his view of the relationship of the two birds ; while others, 

 referring them to different genera, would, by current usage, be equally jus- 

 tified in retaining the same specific name for both species. 



One further illustration : In 1788 Gmelin named a bird Procellaria cine- 

 rea. In 1820 Kuhl applied the same name to another species afterwards 

 called Procellaria kuhlii. These two species are now commonly looked 

 upon as belonging to different genera, the former being an Adamastor, the 

 latter a Pnffinus. They are not, however, called Adamastor cinereus and 

 Puffinns cinereus, but A. cinereus and P. kuhlii. 



These illustrations will serve as examples of the complications that arise 

 and the instability which results from present methods in such cases, and 

 show the lack of uniformity of usage now prevailing. Cases of this sort are 

 in reality very numerous, and often egregiously misleading. Your Commit- 

 tee urges that the adoption of the maxim, "Once a synonym always a syno- 

 nym," in relation to specific, as well as to generic names, will eradicate a 

 prolific source of instability in nomenclature, and provide a consistent and 

 uniform rule for a very troublesome class of cases. So long as naturalists 

 differ in opinion respecting the limits of genera, the absence of such a rule 

 leaves too many specific names open to personal arbitration and individual 

 predilection. 



CANON XXXIV. A nomen nudum is to be rejected as having 

 no status in nomenclature. 



REMARKS. A name, generic or specific, which has been published with- 

 out an accompanying diagnosis, or reference to an identifiable published 

 figure or plate, or, in case of a generic name, to a recognizably described 



4 



