(2 ) 



give my reasons. From the British Association Cotle of 1842 nntil tho Ititeruatioiial 

 Code the word " binomial " was nsed. In that Code the word " binary " was 

 substitnted, aiijiarcntly on account of the nse of trinomials. It has been accepted 

 as corresi>ondinfr absolutely to binomial by all the leading writers on uomenclatnro 

 in every branch of science. As the meaning of "binary nomenclature" the standard 

 dictionaries give "binomial nomenclature," and of "binary name," "binomial name." 



That such was the intention of the compilers of the International Code is 

 clearly shown by the wording of Article 20, which reads : 



" Art. 20.— The tenth edition of Linne's Sifstema jS'afurae, 1758, is the work 

 which inaugurated the consistent general application of the binary nomenclature 

 in zoology. The year 1758, therefore, is accepted as the starting-point of zoological 

 nomenclature, and of the Law of Priority." 



There can be no doubt from the wording of this Article that only a substitute 

 name for binomial was proposed. Linnd's 10th Edition of the Si/stema Naturae, 

 1758, (lid inaugurate consistent binomial nomenclature, but it certainly cannot 

 be stated to have introduced consistently "binary" as understood by the Com- 

 mission's nomenclature. That was adopted by Liiiiie in his 1st Edition, 173."), and 

 from that date he was always " binary " until KoS, when he became " binomial " 

 throughout in his writings. 



I therefore submit that the meaning given to the word " binary "' must be 

 governed by the context, and that in view of Article 20 it can have none other 

 tjian t'.iat used by me, i.e. absolutely equivalent to binomial. 



Page 8 : Genus XII. I'filojuis is preoccupied by ScliOnherr, his p. 1 140 (1823). 

 ,, 12 : „ XXX. RalliiM must be reinstated. 



In the last number of the Soc. Zool. p. 403 I projiosed the rejection of RnUina 

 (anct.), not Heichenbach, and the substitution oi Eari/zona Bonaparte. 



While the matter was in the press I came across a note by Witmcr Stone 

 (I'roc. Acad. Xaf. Sci. Philad. p. 141, 1804) which, although Stone had arrived 

 at the same conclusion as myself, provided data which led me to reconsider the 

 question. 



It appears that Stejneger {I'roc. V. S. Sat. Mas. x. p. 305, 1887) over 

 twenty years ago had antieijiated me in advising the misuse (apparent) oi' H'iIUiki, 

 and tlie necessity of using Kanizona. His arguments led to a diflerent source of 

 liullina, and consequent invalidity of the conclusions of Stejneger, Witraer Stone, 

 and myself. 



Stejneger (p. 300) wrote : — 



1846. Corethriira Gray, Gen. /!. iii p. 595 (type R. cei/lonicus Gm.) nee Reichb. 

 1855. Rallinn Gray, Cat. den. j). 120 (type R. fascintus Kaffl.) nee Keichb. 

 Unfortunately he did not say what he considered Corethrura Ueichb. 

 or Rallina Reichb. to refer to. 

 Witmer Stone, probably basing his researches ujion this groundwork, gave 

 more detail, thus : — 

 On p. 132— 

 1848. Rullina Reich. Si/n. Ae. vol. iii. Rasores — tyi)e R. maximus Vieill. ; 

 and on p. 141 — 



1840. Rallina Gray, Gen. Birds iii. p. 505— 1\ pe R. zeylanictts Gm. (ncc Rallina 

 Reichb.). 



