Vol. XVIII. -I Correspondence. 21"^ 



igig J ' ^ 



ornithology. He referred to " the strongest feature of the 

 International Code is what is known as the law of priority," but 

 I took great pains in my address to show that the International 

 Code departed from the original agreement and definition of the 

 arbitrary " law of priority." This must not he lost sight of. 



Dr. Leach (chairman), in concluding the discussion, states :— 

 " We could not use a different family here " (than elsewhere). 

 The question of " families " of birds was not raised by me. 

 " Over twenty Australian generic names had been finalized " by 

 the International Commission. Dr. Leach might have further 

 added that " the majority were on the present R.A.O.U. ' Check- 

 list,' and among those Mr. Campbell had always contended for." 

 Possibly more Australian names may be " finahzed " if proper 

 representation were made to the International Commission. 



To conclude with my "profitless propaganda" — an expression, 

 so far as I recollect, not used at the discussion. The " profitless 

 propaganda " has brought me many unsolicited and helpful 

 letters. The following are extracts : — 



One from a world-renowned scientist at Washington, U.S.A. : — 

 " What we need, after this war is over, is a world ornithological 

 congress to settle the question once and for all. As to how such 

 a congress could untangle this entire matter is a question I 

 propose to discuss very shortly in the public press. I will not 

 touch upon it here. ' More power to you ! ' " 



From another distinguished American in California : — " Your 

 remarks are in keeping with the motto on the title-page of the 

 A.O.U. ' Check-list ' : ' Zoological nomenclature is a means, not 

 an end, of zoological science.' I have adhered to the current 

 rules of zoological nomenclature. Such a course involves changes 

 in nomenclature that are certainly embarrassing to the general 

 writer on ornithology and other writers that have occasion to 

 refer to technical bird-names, and leads to further instability, 

 which, I believe, is the hope of the future. When the instability 

 reaches the stage of a general nuisance the remedy can be found 

 in the fiat. An international commission, guided by such 

 evidence as the R.A.O.U., B.O.U., and A.O.U. lists, &c., could 

 frame lists of names in each group of animals, and arbitrarily 

 make these lists the starting-point in nomenclature. If the 

 future revealed duplication of names, it would be the province 

 of the commission to supply the deficiency by coining new names, 

 letting ' the dead past bury its dead.' " 



From a Cambridge ornithologist (England) : — " Little is known 

 of the so-called ' International Code.' Probably the reason of 

 the neglect is that our ' head men ' in zoology won't hear of it, 

 and are not on it. I can't say how developments may go. Orni- 

 thologists pay no attention, either, because they stick to the 

 Stricklandian Code, or have ' gone German.' Try to keep some 

 reasonable balance, as in the B.O.U. list." 



And, lastly, one of several I have received from nearer home. 

 A well-known doctor in New South Wales writes : — " Many thanks 



