Vi IIvTRODUCTION . 



only have a local and transient value, but a world-\\ide uniformity, 

 based upon Rules which can be acepted by ornithologists of all 

 nations. If the scientific names of birds were uniform all over 

 the world, what an enormous benefit it would be to ornithologists 

 and science generally. Should Ave not all unite in striving to reach 

 this end ? After all, what is nomenclature ? It is little more 

 than a system of labelling, and yet we have neglected for more than 

 150 3"ears one of the requisites of greatest importance — that our 

 labels should everywhere be the same for the same bird. 



How has the evil of want of uniformity arisen and continued ? 

 In early times, with slow and difficult means of communication 

 there was plenty of excuse for describing as new a bird which had 

 already been named by someone else in another part of the world, 

 and since those times many even of the most familiar birds have in 

 ignorance of previous descriptions and names been redescribed and 

 renamed, so that there has gradually groA\Ti up a long list of synonyms 

 for one and the same species. The evil has continued for want of 

 the adoption of a uniform system of nomenclature, based on the 

 strictest priority, by which the correct names can be fixed. Unfor- 

 tunately, authorities have hitherto made it very much a matter of 

 individual choice as to which name should be employed, and we 

 regret to say that this " method " even now obtains. But such 

 a proceeding can never lead to uniformity, for so long as the matter 

 is one of choice ungoverned by rules which can be accepted as 

 authoritative by all the world, then so long will there be chaos. 



Let us take a few examples, out of many which might be cited, 

 where uniformity in deciding upon the name to be used is an impos- 

 sibility without the universal adoption of one code of Rules based 

 on absolute priority. 



^Vhile Stephens in Shaw's " General Zoology " (1809) used the 

 name Lanius ruficollis for the Woodchat, MacGillivray, Yarrell, 

 in the 2nd and 3rd editions, and Harting in the 1st edition of 

 his " Handbook," called the bird La7iius rutilus. But even at this 

 period Gray (1863) and Gould (1850-68) preferred to use Lanius 

 or Enneoctonus rufus. In 1871 NcAvton adopted the name auri- 

 culatus in the 4th edition of Yarrell and was followed by Dresser 

 in the " Birds of Europe." But the committee of the B.O.U. in 

 their " List " (1883) changed the name to L. pomeranus. Seebohm, 

 Avho was a member of this committee, preferred to use the name 



