INTRODTTCTION. 



other species as to make it doubtful which it might be intended 

 to designate, or where the name was first used for another species 

 which was also clearly defined. The violation of the rules 

 of nomenclature laid down by the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science is nothing new in ornithology. I know of 

 no writer who attempts to carry them out in their entirety. The 

 modern attempt to carry out the law of priority regardless of 

 consequences, which has introduced so many unknown names into 

 our nomenclature to the detriment of the study of ornithology, has 

 generally been in direct violation of the equally important law of 

 clear definition, which, if it were in its turn carried out in the same 

 unrelenting manner, wovdd further complicate our nomenclature to 

 a perhaps still greater degree. If the new names already attempted 

 to be introduced bo carefully examined, it will be found that they 

 generally fail in clear definition. It appears to me to be a great 

 mistake to rake up old and little-used names, and to adopt them 

 because the balance of collateral evidence that they were intended 

 by their authors to be applied to certain species is in their favour. I 

 venture to hope that future ornithologists will retain the old familiar 

 names, even if the law of priority has to be modified to countenance 

 their retention. I have accordingly adopted the law of priority 

 with the following modifications — that names which have been 

 extensively misapplied must be rejected, and names otherwise 

 unobjectionable must be retained, if a majority of ornithological 

 writers have used them, even though they may not be the oldest. 

 The adoption of this conformation of the law to the practice of the 

 good old times would also have another immense advantage. It 

 would enable us to omit the authority for the specific name, as all 

 names would henceforth be plurimonim auctorum, and thus the 

 stigma that our names are after all trinomial would be avoided. 

 Like many other conservative practices, this may not be verv 

 logical, but I take it to be an eminently jiractical solution of the 

 difiicultics that surround ornithological nomenclature. 



The following explanations are necessary to make the synonymy 

 intelligible : — 



" Tardus modestas, Elyth nee Eyton" means that Blyth gave this 

 name to the species in question, that Eyton had previouslv given 



