( n4 ) 



"The Coiumissiou is, therefore, clearly of the iijiiiiinn that iiuless the Jyiiw 

 of Priority is strictly applied, no imiformity in Iiiternatioual /oological Nomeii- 

 clatare can obtain, and that it is wiser for the jiresent generation to bear with 

 the tetnporary inconvenience of a few changes than to transmit to future 

 generations onr numenclafnral problems, angiuenteil a hnndreilfohl by the aiMition 

 of the ever-increasing number of systematic units, maile jjossible by the like 

 increase in the amotmt of literature."' {Upi/nonx rendemd lii/ tin- International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Opinion 12 [1910].) 



As for those who do not realise the tremendous amount of work and " tedious 

 labour necessary before one can solve so apjiareutly simple a jirdblem as the date 

 of the publication of a mere name, or even of an individual voliitue," I refer them 

 to Sberborn, Natural Science, December 1890, pp. 4ih;-'.i. 



When I explained my nomenclatorial views, and justified my advocacy of 

 trinomialism in the />/««, vol. xi. pp. 52-S, the editorial commeut was : '• Australian 

 authors have been following the British Museum Catalogues. Are they wrong in 

 doing so ? " The implication herein contained requires some notice. 



As will be understood by any one who has consulted these Catalogues, they 



cannot be accepted as final when the Avifauna of a special ('ouutry is worked u(). 



Tlie British BInseum Catalogues constitute a series of Monographs, dealing with 



the Birds of the World, and all that is therein contained are the views of the 



Monographer, at the time the particular Monograph was written, judging from 



the material he had in front of him. When it is remembered that the first 



volume appeared in 1874, it must be conceded that it is ipiite possible to 



arrive at a ditfereut result in IVU 1 thau could possibly be arrived at in lsT4, 



however gifted the worker might have been who handled the material at that 



date. If the editors of the Ji^mu, upon any debatable point, had consulted the 



British Museum Catalogues and noted the. evident lack of material, the above 



commeut would not have been written. It must not be forgotten that I have 



been daily consulting the material at the British Museum for mauy years past, 



and therefore am in a splendid position to judge the results put forward in the 



Catalogues. In the present List every innovation has been checked by means 



of the material at the British Museum, and my own collection now outnumbers the 



Australian birds in the British Museum in every way ; and whereas every one 



of my birds bears the fullest data, this is the exce()tion in that Institution, as 



the majority of their Australian birds were acquired before the value of data was 



recognised. My words can be easily confirmed by reference to the Catalogues, 



where the onli/ data known are fully given. Another point is that even those data 



in mauy instances are imperfect. 



As a groimd-work the British Museum ('atalogues are indisjienaable, but to 

 accept them as conveying finality upon any matter whatever would be absurd. 



To reply briefly : Australian workers were not wrong in following the British 

 Museum Catalogues, but to refuse acceptance to the correction of errors therein 

 contained would be unscientific, and I do not consider for a moment that they 

 would coimsel such advice. 



I want it to be fully luiderstuud that the diagnoses of my new subspecies 

 are only the brief diagnostic characters necessary to indicate the form, and that 

 they will be fully elaborated and treated in detail in my book on the Birds of 

 Australia, now progressing. 



