( 135 ) 



There is no doubt that these three forms must be kept separate, for to say that 

 they are alike is wrong. It is, however, possible, and even probable, that several 

 more local forms exist in C!entral Asia, where enormons mountain-ranges remain 

 nu('xi)lored, or in parts of Northern Asia. In the Seebohm collection, now in the 

 British Mnsenm, is a skin labelled as being found in the Tian Shau, which has a 

 long wing (186 mm.) and a stout and powerful bill, though only 38 mm. long from 

 the frontal feathering to the tip. It belongs very likely to a local thick-billed 

 mountain-form. Then there is a skin from the Kurile Islands which I take to 

 belong to N'. c. japoniais. Its wing is short, only 173 mm. One from Peking has 

 the wing 1 78 mm., the bill only 35 mm. long, and not thicker than in Siberian 

 examples. I have not been able to examine specimens from the Pyrenees, where it 

 is said to lireed ! 



I append a synopsis of the old-world species and subspecies of the genus 

 XuciJ'raga, as far as established at present. With regard to the nomenclature used 

 here, I refer my readers to my article in No. 523, 1897, of the Zoologische Anzeigi^r. 

 With regard to the gender of the name Nucifraga, Brisson, who founded the genus, 

 certainly used it as a feminine word, and this ino<lus has generally been followed, 

 though (J. L. Brehm used it as a masculine, and this seems to be right, as it is 

 clearly a masculine noun, such as agricola and many others. However, what are we 

 to do, to follow the (often erroneous) usage of the founder of a generic name, or use 

 it in its grammatically proper gender ? The first would be preferable, as in cases 

 of new and not classic words the gender may be uncertain. There now arises 

 another question : are we modern purists in jtriority of nomenclature (juite logical 

 and consequent in adopting all names in their original spelling and yet altering the 

 gender of the specific name to bring it in uniformity with the generic term ? A 

 diii'erence exists already between some authors and others : some alter also the 

 gender of nouns, such as jnscator, sil/ilat)ix, into piscatrix, sMlator; others alter only 

 the gender if the names are true adjectives, if necessary, so as to bring them into 

 conformity with the genus. I believe that all this is still a remainder of bvgone 

 times, when zoological nomenclature was entirely ruled by philological and etymo- 

 logical pretensions, and not by common sense and practical requirements alone, and 

 when a " classisch gebildetes " word was often thought to be of greater merit than 

 a new observation, and a " nicht classisch gebildetes " word a greater crime than an 

 erroneous statement. I believe that if we only try to use all specific names (as well as 

 generic ones) entirely unaltered, we shall find it less trouble and more convenient, 

 and in no way illogical or against our classical feelings, if we simply regard them 

 as names and not as adjectives — which is much preferable, as less than two-thirds 

 of our specific terms are adjectively formed — see for example all the dedication- 

 names and many others. 



Nucifraga Brisson, 18G0. 



1. Rump and upper tail-coverts centred with the same large white patches as 

 the back : N. multipunctuOi Gould. (Kashmir and Western Himalayas to 

 Kumaon.) 



2. Kump and upper tail-coverts, as well as middle of throat, lower abdomen, 

 and sides of body, without white spots ; lateral rectrices white for their apical half : 

 N. hemispila Vig. (Himalayas, from the Sutlej Valley to Bhutan.) 



3. Itump and upper tail-coverts with few and smaller white spots than the 



