428 Mr. H. Seebolim on certain Points in 



XXXVIT. — Remarks on certain Points in Ornithological 

 Nomenclature. By Henry Seebohm, F.Z.S. 



The attempt which Strickland made to introduce order into 

 the chaos of zoological nomenclature^ by constructing a code 

 of laws to save it from the hopeless confusion into which it 

 was drifting, deserves the highest praise. Though these 

 rules were carefully amended by a zoological committee, and 

 passed by the parliament of the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science, no one who is familiar with the 

 imperfections of statute-law will be surprised to learn that, 

 like all other codes, the Stricklandian rules proved inade- 

 quate to meet the multiplicity of cases with which they had 

 to deal. The difficulty was met by allowing a liberal inter- 

 pretation of the rules when necessary, or even by tacitly 

 ignoring them where a blind adherence to the letter of the 

 law would have increased the confusion it was constructed to 

 avoid. Around the Stricklandian statute law there has thus 

 arisen an uncodified ornithological ''judges' law,"" founded 

 upon the practice of the best ornithologists, which has, until 

 recently, secured the important objects at which Strickland 

 aimed. 



But, unfortunately, during the last few years three ornitho- 

 logical works have put in an appearance, which threaten 

 to undo much of the good which Strickland's efforts have 

 accomplished. Ornithological nomenclature is once more 

 disturbed by frivolous changes, and is rapidly drifting from 

 the position of exact scientific accuracy to that of mere 

 popular indefiniteness. These three works, Newton's 'Birds 

 of Britain,' Dresser's ' Birds of Europe,' and Sharpe's ' Cata- 

 logue of the Birds of the British Museum,' so far as each 

 has proceeded, have gradually undermined the principles 

 which Strickland endeavoured to embody in his code ; so that 

 now a state of confusion has arisen in ornithological nomen- 

 clature little, if at all, better than the pre- Stricklandian 

 chaos. Newton, in his edition of Yarrell's ' British Birds,' 

 has apparently ignored the practice of Strickland and other 

 eminent ornithologists, and too frequently, in opposition to 



