342 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 



established, that Bartram's birds are described as well as named. 

 The accuracy and pertinence or the reverse, of his descriptions, is 

 immaterial to the point at issue ; his species are simply to be 

 identified, upon the principles applied and by the means employed, 

 in all other cases, by ornithological experts. 



Bartram's method of nomenclature only remains for discus- 

 sion ; and in this matter much might be said pro and con. The 

 gist of the case is, as already said, that he is systematically bino- 

 mial on principle, with occasional lapses, which, however, do not 

 invalidate his system any more than the similar deviations from 

 strict binomiality in the above-mentioned cases of Schlegel or 

 Bonaparte. It is not to the point to argue a difference in intent or 

 meaning as e.g. between Bonaparte and Schlegel 's Loxia curvirostra 

 rubrifasciata, and Bartram's Loxia rostro forficato ; for in either 

 case the trinomial result is the same. In fact, in such cases, it 

 may be replied with greater force, that through ignorance, over- 

 sight, or for other reason Bartram simply failed to give a name at 

 all ; his Loxia rostro forficato, for instance, being described, but 

 not named. This point is at any rate as well taken as the objec- 

 tions to Bartram's binomiality can be. As to the form of his 

 nomenclatural and diagnostic phrases, it may be observed, X,\\qj 

 are in close accord with the custom of the day. " Parus cedrus, 

 uropygio flavo, the yellow rump" (no. 115) is thoroughly en regie, 

 and to claim that " P. aureus vertice rubro, the yellow red pole" 

 (no. 118) is any different, for want of the comma, would be to 

 hang a man's reputation on a punctuation point surely the dis- 

 ingenuous quibble of a pleader, in a great strait. 



It is an evident corollary of what has gone before, that Bartram 

 is entitled to unreserved recognition among ornithologists. Such 

 of his species as are binomially named and fully identified must 

 take their rightful place in the curriculum of synonym atic quota- 

 tion ; and those names which are found to possess the quality of 

 priority must be adopted. Bartram's names are not simply literary 

 curiosities, nor is their examination a mere matter of bibliomania. 

 For the nomenclature of some fifteen or twenty of our commonest 

 birds hangs upon the acceptance or rejection of this author. The 

 case is submitted to the candid consideration of ornithologists. 



In order to the most complete exposition of the case, and that 

 ornithologists may the more readily be enabled to judge for them- 

 selves whether the present advocacy is in a good or bad cause, 



