88 On Schaeffer's ' Museum OrnithologicumJ 



Now it is well known that in the Stricklandian Code 

 of Nomenclature, which most of the older Ornithologists 

 are content to follow, the twelfth edition (1766) of the 

 ' Systema Naturse ' was adopted as the initial point of 

 binomial nomenclature. But a reservation was made in 

 favour of the genera established in Brisson's ' Ornithologie ' 

 of 1760. This reservation has been widely adopted, and 

 many of Brisson's generic terms (Perdix, Accipiter, Aquila, 

 &c.) are in constant and familiar use. There are, however, 

 some authors who maintain that Brisson, not having been a 

 Binomialist, ought not to be allowed to found genera in a 

 Binomial System. Dr. Hartert is strongly of that opinion 

 (see 'Ibis/ 1903, p. 418), and I, though I have usually 

 followed the lead of my friend and master, Strickland, 

 have always thought that it was a mistake to have made this 

 special exception in favour of Brisson. I wish, therefore, 

 to point out that we have, in Schaeffer's ' Museum Ornitho- 

 logicum/ twenty-six of Brisson's familiar generic terms of 

 1760 confirmed in 1789. Thus it is only necessary for those 

 who reject Brisson's claims to found genera to adopt as the 

 authority for them " Schaeffer, 1789," instead of "Brisson, 

 1760." The generic term " Carduelis" for the Goldfinch 

 comes under this category, and may be quoted by those 

 who exclude Brisson's names as "Schaeffer, 1789." It 

 would, therefore, as has been already pointed out (cf. 

 f Ibis/ 1904, p. 293), take precedence over " Acanthis, 

 Bechstein, 1803." In the same way " Pica," " Nucifraga," 

 and " Garrulns " should, in my opinion, be quoted as of 

 "Schaeffer, 1789," and not as of "Vieillot, 1816," as 

 is done in the ' Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna,' while 

 " Coccothraustes " and " Pyrrhula " (of the same work) may 

 be attributed to "Schaeffer, 1789," in place of "Pallas, 

 1811," and in a similar way " Passer " to Schaeffer instead of 

 Koch. On the whole very little, if any, disturbance in our 

 ordinary nomenclature would be caused by the adoption of 

 Schaeffer's generic terms, and I do not see how we can 

 logically justify our refusal to acknowledge their validity. 



