the Genera and Subgenera of Birds, 1 91 



appeared, and when the 'binomial method' was first dawning on 

 the mind of the great Linnaeus, and let them admit no genera on the 

 authority of any prior author, nor even of the earlier works of Linnseus 

 himself." To this purely arbitrary decision I can find no reason 

 whatever for subscribing. In my work it is justly stated, "The 

 synonymy commences with the edition of Linnseus's 'Systema Na- 

 turae' published in 1735*," that is to say, with the first edition of 

 that immortal work ; and I have yet to learn in what respect this 

 principle does not "work well." The question has nothing to do 

 with the "binomial method," which has reference only to species; 

 and Linnaeus himself discriminates between the earlier formation of 

 genera, which were well circumscribed and accurately named long 

 before the complete circumscription and limitation of species by the 

 use of trivial names. For this reason, any "statute of limitations" 

 in regard to genera that should stop short of 1 735, would rest on no 

 intelligible principle, and could not therefore command a general 

 assent. I will only observe further, that were the date of 1760, as 

 proposed by Mr. Strickland, to be taken as the " absolute line " of 

 the "statute of limitations," it would exclude the great and univer- 

 sally quoted edition of the * Systema Naturae ' (the tenth) published 

 in 1758, in which the binominal system was complete in regard to 

 Birds ; and the binominal system was not even then merely " dawning 

 on the mind of the great Linnaeus," but had been fully carried out 

 through the whole vegetable kingdom in the edition of the * Species 

 Plantarum' published in 1753. 



The edition of the * Systema Naturae ' published in 1 735 being 

 then taken as the starting-point, from which the great author of a 

 uniform system proceeded in the establishment of genera, it is ob- 

 jected to me that I seem " to give that and the other earlier editions 

 an occasional preference over the subsequent and more perfect pub- 

 lications." The fact is, that all the editions are referred to, for the 

 purpose of showing, in conformity with the entire plan of my work, 

 when the genus was first proposed and established by Linnaeus. 

 And here, as elsewhere, I offer to every student the means of tracing 

 out the facts necessary to complete the history of each division, being 

 quite aware of the natural divergence of minds on all questions of 

 opinion, and leaving it open to all to form their own opinions in 

 conformity with those principles which appear most satisfactory to 

 themselves. My aim is solely to produce a record of facts as com- 

 plete as possible, and I make no pretensions to the vain attempt of 

 producing uniformity of opinion. 



The reviewer goes on to object that I take " it for granted that 

 the first species on the list of each of these editions was intended to 

 be the type of the genus, — a point which admits of much argument." 

 It is with the view of saving " much argument," which would as- 

 suredly be the result of any other system, that I have laid it down as a 

 principle for my own guidance, that where no other species is stated 



* Systema Naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systeraatice proposita per 

 Classes, Ordines, Genera et Species. Lugd. Bat. 1735. 



