( 5) 



Page 23 : Species 147. Lobibi/x novaehollandiae Stephens, in Shaw's Gen. Zool. 

 vol. xi. \)t. ii. p. 510 (1819) 

 replaces L. lobatus " Latham " Vieill. 



Latham proposed the name Triiiga lohata in the Stippl. Index Ornitli. p. Ixv, 

 1801, for this bird, bnt tliat combination liad been ntilised by Linne in the Si/st. 

 Nat. Xth Ed. p. 148 (175.S) for another sj)ecies. Vieillot's Vanelhis lobatus {Nouc. 

 Diet, et Hist. Nat. vol. xxxv. p. 209, 1819) is simply a new generic location for 

 Latham's species, so that we have to fall back upon Stephens's name as above. 



Page 24: Genus LXXXIV. P^i^na^is Schaeffer, Mas. Ornith. p. 48 (1789)— type 

 P. axrea — C/iaradrus piuvialis Linne 

 replaces Ckaradrius nee Linni'. 

 „ ,, Genus LXXXV^. Eupoda Brandt, in TchihatchefF's Voi/. Sci. Altai 

 Oriental p. 444 (1845) — type (by monotypy) E. caspia Pallas 

 replaces Ochthodromus Reichb. 1852. 

 „ „ Genus LXXXVI. Chamdrius Linn(5, Syst. Nat. Xth Ed. p. 150 (1758)— 

 type C. hiatii'ida 

 replaces Aegialitis Boie, 1822. 

 „ 26: Genus XCV. Tringa Linn6, Syst. Nat. Xth Ed. p. 148 (1758)— type 

 T. ocrophm 

 replaces Ilelodromas Kanp (1829). 

 „ „ Genus XCVI. Ileteroscelus Baird, Rep. Expl. Sin-f. Railr. Pac. Ocean 

 vol. ix. p. 734 (1858) 

 replaces Heteractitis Stejneger, 1884. 



Refer to note under Genus CXLVIII, Oxyum (p. 9). 



Page 27 : Genus XOVIII. Xeniis Kaup, Skizz. Entwick. Gesch. Nat. Syst. p. 115 

 (1829) 

 replaces Tere/na Bonaparte, 1838. 



The same remark applies as to the preceding. 



Page 28 : Genus CVI. Canutus Brehm, Vdgel Dcutschl. p. 653 (1831)— type 

 C. canutus L. 

 replaces Tringa nee LinnS. 



In Nov. Zool. vol. xvii. p. 502, 1910, I pointed out tliat under existing 

 laws Curvirostra Scopoli should replace Loxia as currently accepted. In a 

 footnote Dr. Hartert drew my attention to the fact that by the exercise of 

 tautonymy Loxia could be preserved. Privately he referred me to the published 

 Opiuiiiiis iif tlie International ('ommission on Nomenclature, where Opinion No. 10 

 dealt with tautonymy as applicable to the Linnean genera. That Opinion, while 

 ruling that it was a most desirable proceeding to have the type of the Linnean 

 genera fixed by this method wlien available, carefully decided to say nothing 

 with regard to the only debatable cases, and wrote : " If any author attempts 

 to construe the cases (viz. Tringa, Ckaradrius) under the present ruling, the burden 

 of proof to show that he is justified in the procedure rests upon him." I consider 

 this a most unscientific proceeding, and feel that if the Linnean genera can 

 lawfully have types fixed by this method (viz. tautonymy), all that will admit 

 of such type fixation must be so treated, Cousecjuently I accept as type of 



