.^-1 J^^ 



NOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE 



Vol. XVIII. JUNE, 1911. No. 1. 



ON SOME NECESSARY ALTERATIONS IN THE 

 NOMENCLATURE OF BIRDS. 



PART II. 



Conlinued from Nov. Zool. xvii. p. 503(1910). 

 By GREGORY M. MATHEWS. 



THE succeedinj; notes refer, as iu the previous part, almost entirely to Au.straliaa 

 birds, but tliose dealing with generic names iu some cases will appeal to 

 students not interested iu that fauua. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable aid 

 giveu by Mr. C. Davies Sherboru in the matter of obtaining dates ; indeed, without 

 his assistance some of these notes would not have been written. At the end of the 

 Australian notes I have added a few which deal entirely with extra-Australian 

 birds, but contain points whicli seem necessary to be recorded. 



Since the publication of my conclusions regarding the invalidity of the 

 Brissonian genera 1 have received the " 0[iiiuous rendered by the International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature." Opinion No. 20 seems to have a direct 

 bearing on the matter of Brisson, and the acceptance of the Summary there arrived 

 at would necessitate the recognition of the genera proposed by Brisson. The 

 printed Discussion, however, contains points which reijuire reconsideration. 



Of Gronov's species it is written, " Essentially, Gronow's specific designations 

 are polynominal and diagnostic," and then the conclusion reads, " It is clear that 

 Gronow's nomenclature is binary— that is, he names two units or things, genera 

 and spedes." I would agree with Hoyle that " Gronow has not applied the 

 princijjles of binary nomenclature." 



Article 2 states : " The scientific designation of animals is uninominal for 

 subgenera and all higher groups, binominal for species, and trinominal for sub- 

 species." Inasmuch as Gronov failed to comply with this article, which is certainlj' 

 a vital principle, he did not apply the principles of binary nomenclature, and hence, 

 according to Article 2.5, his names are invalid. That this reasoning is valid cannot 

 be denied, as Article 2 is not split into sections but reads consecutively, and must 

 be accepted or rejected as a whole, not partim. Otherwise it might be claimed 

 that the Gronoviau specific names, which are by chance binominal, should receive 

 recognition ; indeed, this principle has been carried out with regard to some, not 

 consistently binomial, writers. 



But my main, and to me unanswerable, argument against Brisson was that 

 he was non-binomial. I interpreted the word "binary" as equivalent to "binomial," 

 and used the latter as more familiar to my readers. According to the reading of 

 the Commission " binary " has an altogether difi'erent meaning. I am inclined to 

 question the correctness of the Commission's ruling iu this matter, and herewith 



1 



