THE NEW NOMENCLATURE OF BRITISH BIRDS 195 



during which a very considerable measure of uniformity had 

 been attained, is a mystery. It is a mere matter of opinion 

 as to whether the twelfth (1766) or the tenth (1758) edition of 

 Linnaeus should be the starting-point, and the twelfth had 

 the advantage of sixty-three years' start in usage. 



We are now asked to be obedient unto the law. We 

 ask, Which law ? The laws of priority in this matter are the 

 laws of the British Association. 



British zoologists have, so to speak, a vested interest in 

 matter of priority in the nomenclature of their science, and 

 many of them consider that the claims of their long established 

 codes have not received at the hands of later committees 

 on the subject the consideration they justly deserved. 



It is well to remember that our older and middle- 

 aged naturalists, recognising the excellent work of their 

 distinguished predecessors in this cause, will not conform 

 readily to the finding of any commission, international or 

 otherwise. As the situation now stands, the attainment of 

 uniformity must lie along the path of mutual concession., 

 otherwise it will certainly not be reached for many years 

 to come. 



The more one studies the march of nomenclatural events 

 in recent years the more one is impressed with the wisdom 

 of the findings of the British Association's committees. The 

 departure from its main decision as to the starting-point 

 has opened the door for endless changes, and has resulted in 

 a state of chaos prevailing in zoological nomenclature — the 

 greatest that it has ever known. 



It is not in accordance with the facts to suppose that 

 there were no binomial names prior to the tenth edition 

 of the Systema Natures ; and it is possible that a new genera- 

 tion of zoologists may arise and say, we must have strict 

 priority. A number of such names date back to Gesner 

 0555) J an d not a few will be found in the classical work of 

 our countryman, Willughby, which was published in the 

 year 1676. 



We have alluded to the numerous changes in nomen- 

 clature entailed by the adoption of the names given in 

 this Hand-List. These we do not hesitate to describe 



