302 Letters, Announcements, i^c. 



Acting Editor? Is he carried away by the ^'conservative 

 reaction " of which he so highly appi'oves ? 



W, T. Blanford. 



June 80th, 1874. 



[With regard to Mr. Blanford's question^ in the second part 

 of this letter, relating to the British-Association Rules we may 

 answer unhesitatingly, of course they are not to be abandoned. 

 The real question turns upon the legality and, we may add, 

 the propriety of the changes proposed to be made. It must 

 be admitted that very great uncertainty hangs over many of 

 the names in the works of the older authors, arising chiefly 

 from insufficiency of definition, a great many names being 

 based upon old drawings and brief descriptions in still older 

 works to an extent which would not be tolerated at the pre- 

 sent time. What we wish to maintain is that it is not con- 

 ducive to the advancement of science that imperfect descrip- 

 tions, about which grave elements of doubt often hang, should 

 be made use of to supersede titles in current use. In other 

 words, it is, in our opinion, wrong to supplant names which 

 can be clearly attached to the objects to which they belong, 

 by terms concerning the application of which there is any dis- 

 pute. If, however, the case can be made out with perfect 

 satisfaction, the change must be made. Moreover, if change 

 of a generally used name can be avoided by placing a par- 

 ticular construction on an old author^s writings, we think 

 that such a construction ought to be applied. 



But to proceed to the subject of Mr. Sclater's remarks. 

 The use of the genus Platea of Brisson in place of Platalea 

 of Linnseus is clearly in violation of Rule 2 and its explana- 

 tion, it being stated that such of Brisson^s genera that are 

 additional to those of the twelfth edition of the ' Systema 

 Naturae ' are to be used. 



As regards the change made in the application of Linnseus's 

 name Motacilla stapazina, we have to suggest that it was un- 

 necessary. Mr. Dresser^s view is, no doubt, admissible ; but 

 this difficult case may also be interpreted as follows : — Lin- 

 nseus clearly considered that both the figures on Edwards's 



