364 NOVITATES ZOOLOOICAE XXV. 1918. 



ABOUT "SLIGHT" VARIATIONS IN SPELLING. 



In spite of numerous recent attacks the International Rules of Nomen- 

 clature are generally adopted by ornithologists of all countries. In spite of all 

 care and forethought of the Committee who drafted them, and of recent amend- 

 ments, however, some of the articles allow of different interpretations, and the 

 various interpretations have done more harm to the cause of nomenclature than 

 anj'thing else. About two points the Rules are absolutely clear, and yet some 

 recent writers — among others, I am sorry to say, Mr. Harry Oberholser and 

 other American authors, and, at least for a time, Mr. G. M. Mathews — have 

 followed then- own course, which gave them opportunities for changing 

 numerous names and adding new ones as well. I mean the question of slight 

 differences in spelling, and of different terminations of genders and otherwise. 



Logic and experience tell us that even the smallest differences, down to 

 " one-letterism," must be regarded as differences, because it is impossible to 

 draw the line between small and greater diff'erences, while, on the other hand, 

 a strict line can be drawn between different and not different. This is beauti- 

 fully illustrated by some eases, in which Oberholser made new names when the 

 older ones were somewhat similar, and by Mathews rejecting Meliphaga of 1808, 

 because of 3IelopJi(igus of 1802 ! If we go so far we might as well go farther 

 still ; for example, considering as alike Reichenbachia and Reichenowia, Mathaeusa 

 and Matheivsa, Dorothea and Dohertya, etc., etc. 



The Rules are absolutely clear on this point, for in the Recommendations 

 to Article 36 it is said that " it is well to avoid the introduction of new generic 

 names which differ from generic names already m use only in termination or 

 in a slight variation in spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once 

 introduced such names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples : 

 Piciis, Pica, Polyodfus, Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontus ." Can 

 anything be clearer than this ? 



These principles have also been silently followed by many sensible ornith- 

 ologists before the existence of the International Rules. For example, the 

 generic name Butio was given while the author was cjuite aware of the existence 

 of Buteo, Athene was formerly never rejected because of the earlier Athena, etc., 

 etc. Some names have recently most injudiciously been rejected, as for example 

 Aegolius 1829, which should not be rejected on account of Aegolia 1828 ; 

 Ty/o, which cannot be rejected because of Tyta ; Polysticta 1836, which can stand 

 in spite of Polisticte 1835 ; Oxyura, which is not the same as Oxyurus ! 



The different terminations of the genders can easily be detected by the ear 

 and by the eye, and doubtless Fredericus and Frederica, Constantius and Con- 

 stantia, Hellmayrius and Hellmayria are very different things, and quite as 

 different as Picus and Pica. 



An allowance may perhaps be made with the terminations os and us, both 

 having often been indiscriminately used, and both are not easily separable ; 

 moreover, they are only different transliterations of the same thing, which cannot 

 be said of the feminine and masculine gender. Probably there will also be general 

 agreement if, as I wish to propose, the ss and tt in Greek words like Thalassa 

 and Thalatta, if they were genera of birds, Lampronetta and Lampronessa, and 

 similar names, are considered as not separable, because in Greek both were 

 used alternatively. 



