432 Mr. H. Seebohm on certain Points in 



same genus, it must be discarded altogether, but under no 

 possible circumstance should it be transferred to another 

 species in the same genus — a practice which cannot be 

 too strongly condemned, as entirely destroying the scien- 

 tific character of ornithological nomenclature." 



Phylloscopus collibyta, Newton^s ed. Yarr. Brit. B. i. p. 437 ; 

 Dresser, Birds of Eur. pt. Ixxiv. 



It seems to me a matter of profound regret that an attempt 

 should have been made to ignore the name of Phylloscopus 

 rnfus for the Chiffchaff . It is impossible to identify the Curruca 

 rnfa of Brisson or " la petite Fauvette rousse " of Buffon 

 with any known bird. Daubenton^s plate of " la Fauvette 

 rousse " is equally unintelligible, though Newton and Dresser 

 accept it as a clear definition of the Whitethroat, for which 

 they consequently claim the name of Motacilla rufa of Bod- 

 daert. If the two birds had remained in the same genus it 

 would undoubtedly have been necessary to discard the name 

 altogether. Had Boddaert^s name been otherwise unob- 

 jectionable, it must have been rejected on the ground that 

 Sylvia rufa would perpetually be confounded with the Chiff- 

 chafii". On the other hand, Phylloscopus rufus can never be 

 confounded with the Whitethroat. 



I therefore propose to ignore altogether the specific term 

 rufus until it is found attached to a bird which is clearly 

 defined, and to call the ClnScXmE Phylloscopus rufus (Bechst.), 

 since Bechstein was undoubtedly the first ornithologist who 

 clearly defined the species. To cover cases of this kind I pro- 

 pose to add a clause to Rule 12, to enact that names which 

 cannot be identified must be considered as not existing ; 

 otherwise we shall have some ultra-conscientious ornitho- 

 logist giving a new name to Blyth^s Reed Warbler on the 

 ground that it is not the Motacilla dumetorwn of Linnaeus, 

 though no one can tell to which species of the genus Acro- 

 cephalus this name of Linnaeus was intended to apply. 

 The existence of a phantom Motacilla rufa of Boddaert, and 

 of an equally unsubstantial Motacilla rufa of Gmelin and 

 Latham, ought not, in my opinion, to bar the use of Sylvia 



