Recently published Ornithological Works. 511 



upheld that ^' Zoological Nomenclature begins at 1758, 

 the date of the Xth edition of the ' Systema Naturae ' of 

 Linneeus;'^ so_, without wasting time in arguments which 

 must necessarily be barren of results, we will merely express 

 our regret at the adoption of this starting-point instead 

 of the Xllth Edition (1766), considering, as we do, that 

 this proceeding disposes of the last chance of a scientific 

 language in common with our ornithological brethren across 

 the water. Inasmuch as nearly seven pages are devoted to 

 explanation and reasoning as to the. propriety of this step, it 

 may possibly occur to some cynical minds that herein our 

 American friends do " protest too much." In Canon XL. it 

 is laid down that " the original orthography of a name is to 

 be rigidly preserved, unless a typographical error is evident/' 

 emendations of a purely philological character being rejected. 

 So that because the original describer knew no better than to 

 write JEstrelata and ILnicurus, &c., the erroneous orthography 

 is to be perpetuated, although the new Code itself states that 

 scientific names are to be in Latin or the nearest approach to 

 it ! Even more objectionable is the adoption or retention of 

 names given to a section' of a genus or other group, as though 

 they had been the names of defined and characterized genera : 

 whereas many of them are merely nomina nuda. But enough 

 of this ; nor do we intend to say a word about the use of tri- 

 nomials. Before leaving the first portion of the work, we 

 would, however, remark that it is hardly consistent to select 

 for reprobation Tetrao mlokosiewiczii, " named after an 

 obscure forester somewhere in Russia,'^ and not to bracket 

 with it Synthliborhamphus wumizusume. 



The Check-List itself begins with the Pygopodes, and 

 works upward to the Passeres, the first family being given as 

 Podicipidse, in opposition to Dr. Elliott Coues, who in his 

 ' Key ' renders it, correctly as we think, Podicipef/idse. We 

 protest against the adoption of Gavia as the generic name for 

 the Ivory Gull, Fayophila ehurnea. Boie instituted the 

 genus Gavia for the Ivory Gull and the Kittiwake, simjDly 

 because they both had short tarsi and frequented rocks; 

 but there seems to be no good reason for giving the preference 



