Vol. XXII. 



CA.M1>BELL and SOX, Ty^c ncscnf>tions 191 



It .should he clear from this tliat in such circumstances a 

 "diaji^nosis" takes precedence over a "definition," and hoth take 

 precedence over an "indication" -fivitli no reference to priority. 



If this precedent were in the minds of the framers of the Code 

 apphed under Art. 2^, why could it not he applied with equal 

 justice under .\rt. 21 ? v^uch a rule would not roh old authorities 

 of any name, and it would ohviously force some present-day sys- 

 tematists to hring tlicir work u\) to, at least, the standard of a 

 "definition." 



That there is need for an accurate standard for students is 

 a point that should not rec|uire provinj.^. The very ohject of 

 nomenclature as an introduction to ornithology would he de- 

 feated were no standards set to i)rovide reasonable grounds to 

 recognise species and sub-species. 



So recently as 1912 in Novitatcs Zoolof/ica-, vol. xviii, p 350, 

 the following purport to be ty[)e descriptions of sub-species of 

 certain Australian birds : — 



"Acanthica nropyqioUs rutherglcni subs]). n. differs from A. u. 

 uropygialis in its paler rump and basal half of tail, and darker 

 on the flanks and breast. Type: Victoria (Rutherglen)." 



"Acanthiza uropygialis mellori subsp. n. differs from A. u. 

 riithergleni in its greyer upper coloration, only the head and 

 lower back being greenish. Type: Eyre's I'en., South xAus- 

 tralia." 



"Acantliica iiropygiolis oiigusto subsp. n. differs from A. u. 

 mellori m having a lighter back and under tail-coverts. Tvpe : 

 Port Augusta." 



" Acanthiza uropygialis nea subsp. n. differs from A. u. mellori 

 in lacking the green on the head and lower back. Type : West 

 Australia ( Rurracoppin) ." 



Numerous other similar instances can be quoted.* 



In such so-called type descri[)tions it appears as if the author 

 has been operating to the lowest standard, an "indication" — if 

 standard it can be called. Not only are such indications con- 

 fusing, not to say misleading, but they lack the reasonable com- 

 pleteness and the thoroughness of a scientific type description. 

 To be practical, if a ruling were obtained that the Code never 

 intended "an indication" to apply to modern nomenclature, it 

 would possibly prevent further unscientific work, and be of 

 greatest assistance to students. 



fFor further remarks on "indication" see "Science," 5th July, 1907. 



'■"Take, for example, Geobasileus hedleyi Mathews, Austral Avian 

 Record, I., p. 78, the type description of which reads: — "Differs from 

 Acanthiza iredalci morgani in having a much lighter rump and darker 

 upper surface." 



