^"'qos^ 1 Nomenclature. 29 



a generic name (typographical errors corrected) is distinct from all 

 others not spelled in exactly the same way. Questions of etymology 

 are not pertinent in C£ise of adoption or rejection of names deemed 

 preoccupied. [Note.]- This canon prohibits change of names because 

 prior names of similar sound or etymology exist. It permits the use 

 of generic names of like origin but of different genders or termination 

 to remain tenable. All manner of confusion has been brought into 

 nomenclature by the change of names because others nearly the same 

 are in use. Thus the Ornithologists' Union sanctions the cancellation 

 of Ereniophila because of the earlier genus Eremophilus, of Parula 

 because of the earlier Parulus, and of Helminthopliaga on account of 

 Heminthophagns. On the other hand, Pica and Picus are allowed. 

 In ornithology this matter has been handled by a general agreement 

 on the relatively few cases concerned. But in other groups the matter 

 is b}- no means simple, and every degree of similarity can be found. 

 Thus the genus Canthevines is preceded by Acanthorhinus, a correct 

 rendering of the same etymology ; Canthidermis by A cant ho derma, also 

 a correct form of the same word ; Thymallus is preceded by Thymalus, 

 Lyopsetta by Liopsetta. Rafinesque changes Hiodon because it sounds 

 too much like Diodon ; Trachidermis has been altered on account of 

 its resemblance to TracJiyderma, Ateleopus on account of its resemblance 

 to Atelopus. 



" Between forms like Pachynathns, antedated by the correctly spelled 

 Pachygnathiis, and Aplodontia, antedated by the more correct Haplodon 

 and Aplodon, every sort of case may be found. If all names are regarded 

 as different unless spelled alike, these matters offer no difficulty. Any 

 other view gives no assurance of stability." 



Although there are several other points of diffei^ence of a very minor 

 nature, I shall close this short abstract with the following well-considered 

 canon, a portion of which, as will be seen, departs considerably from 

 present usage in ornithology and mammalogy. 



" Canon XXIX. The authority for a specific or sub-specific name 

 is the first describer of the species or sub-species. A name adopted 

 from manuscripts should be ascribed to the person indicated as author 

 in the original publication, whether this person be the author of the 

 memoir in which the name occurs or not. . . . [Note.] This 

 canon deprecates the practice of ascribing to the author of a paper 

 descriptions and names furnished him in courtesy or otherwise by some 

 other author. If a writer ascribes one of his species to someone else, 

 we must take his word for it. Thus the manuscript species of Kuhl 

 and Van Hasselt in the Museum of Leyden, although printed by Cuvier 

 and Valenciennes, should be ascribed to Kuhl and Van Hasselt." 



Much of the foregoing is doubtless debatable matter, but the 

 reasons for each proposal are well worth thinking over. 



Stray Feathers. 



NiNOX V. PoDARGUS. — Adverting to a note in The Emu, vol. iv., 

 p. 36, I camped at Parwan, Vic, during the last Easter holidays 

 and on the Saturday evening, just as the day was drawing to a 

 close the " Mopokes " began to call. I was too tired to move, 

 but a companion went over to the tree (about 150 paces distant) 



