126 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 



Habitat. Seas and sea coasts of the northern hemisphere ; more particularly 

 in higher latitudes. 



It is quite unnecessary here to go into any details regarding the specific 

 characters of so long and well known a species, and one which is so very dis- 

 tinct both in form and colors from any other of our continent. 



I am well aware that the adoption of the name under which I present this 

 species, may be looked upon by many ornithologists as an unnecessary, or at 

 least as an uncalled for innovation. In defence of the nomenclature adopted, 

 I beg leave to offer the following considerations, which, it is hoped, will ex- 

 onerate me from the charge of needlessly changing names, by proving that if 

 we are to pay any attention to recognized rules of nomenclature, such a pro- 

 cedure is unavoidable in the present instance, and that no other name than 

 the one adopted cau be used : 



In the first place, Moehring's genus Buphagus is certainly based upon a bird 

 which was afterwards the Lams catarractes of Linnaeus. His diagnosis (vide in- 

 fra*) unmistakably refers to one of the Lestridiiuc, while the species is fortu- 

 nately exactly fixed by his reference to " Hojeri" and " cataractes." Perhaps 

 no one of his diagnoses is more definite than this one. This being the case, 

 the only question is, are his genera to be adopted and used in ornithology 1 



I believe that the rule generally followed regarding Moehring's genera, is 

 that they are to be adopted when they can be certainly identified, provided 

 that they do not conflict with subsequent Linnaean appellations. Upon this 

 principle, many of Moehring's old genera have been revived and adopted by 

 Gray, and his example has been followed by Baird, and other ornithological 

 writers. It is thus that such genera as Philomachus, Cullyrio, Trogon, Uria, 

 Catarract.es, etc., have taken the precedence over more modern appellations, 

 to which their priority entitles them. The rule, however, does not appear to 

 have been so strictly carried out as it should be, if adhered to at all. Gray, 

 for example, adopts Stercorarius of Brisson for the Jiiger, remarking ''that it 

 is supposed to be Buphagus of Moehring." His procedure in this case is a 

 little remarkable, since Bupliagus is certainly identifiable ; and there is no 

 Linnaean genus with which it can conflict, Linnaeus ranging all the Jagers 

 known to him with the gulls, under Larus. With this restriction, which, it 

 must be confessed, is rather a compliment to Linnaeus, than strict justice to 

 other writers, the genera of Moehring are to be adopted when identifiable. 

 The fact of that author not being a binomalist, in fact, not dealing at all 

 with species, does not appear to be a valid reason why his genera should be 

 neglected any more than those of Brisson for example. I am decidedly in 

 favor of the adoption for any genus of the first appellation that is proposed for it 

 after the date of the first published works of Linnaeus, provided there be no 

 conflict between them : considering the introduction of a definite form of 

 nomenclature as beginning with that illustrious writer. 



Now, supposing that we do reject Moehring's Buphagus, let us see what will 

 be the consequence. " Stercorarius Brisson 1760" is the name which of late 

 has been most generally applied to the genus in question. But the type of 

 Brisson's genus is not the catarrhactes,\ but the true parasitica, as is evident 

 by his elaborate description, although no specific name is given ; and hence, 

 if it is to be used at all, it must be for the genus of which parasitica is typical. 

 But Brisson was a polynomalist ; and if we refuse to adopt Moehring's names 

 on this score, Brisson's genera must also be rejected : to which procedure, of 

 course, no naturalist would assent. 



Catharacta of Briinnich of 1764 comes next in order, and has as its type 



* Moehring. Genera Avium, 1752, page 66, No. 71. " Rostrum postice rectum, membrana callosa 

 ad nares usque tectum, versus apicem incurvum, lateribus compressis. Femora extra abdomen. 

 Digiti autici ties membrana intermedia toti cohaerentes, posticus liber." 



f Brisson. on page 165 of vol. vi. of his Ornithologie, ranges this species under Larus, calling it 

 " Le Goelaud brun, Larus fuscus." 



[May, 



