^*^|- '"^^-l All Americaii Opinion Couceryiin^ Genera. ^S^ 



which are to he loiind also in tlu' A.O.l' (Mieck-iist. The two 

 committees working under the International Code have, after 

 making allowance for several admitted errors or arbitrary violations 

 of rules, arrived at the same names for all but four of the species, 

 while the latest British list differs from that of Dr. Hartert and his 

 associates in only three specific cases. When three independent 

 committees approach so close to uniformity it would seem that 

 the International Code had solved the jjrohlcms of nomenclatural 

 discrejiancy. 



" In the case of the 151 genera, however, we fmd 40 cases where 

 the names emj)loyed are different. After making allowance as 

 above, we find that only 7 of this number are due to questions 

 of nomenclature — i.e., to the still unsettled point as to how much 

 difference in spelhng constitutes a different word, and to the 

 recognition of certain works in systematic nomenclature. 



" The other 42 cases are due to difference of opinion as to the 

 limitation of genera. One committee, for instance, considers that 

 the Mallard, Blue-winged and Green-winged Teal each represents 

 a distinct genus, and consequently calls them Anas brachy- 

 rhynchos. Qiierqiiednla discors, and Nettion carolinense. Another 

 considers that they all belong to one genus, and quotes them as 

 Anas, hrachyrhynchos, Anas discors, and Anas carolinensis. The 

 third regards the Teal as congeneric, but considers that the 

 ■Mallard represents a distinct genus, and we have Anas brachy- 

 rhyiic/ios, Qiterquedida discors, and Queyqitedula carolinensis. It 

 will be noticed that there is here just as much confusion and 

 difference of ojjinion as could possibly be occasioned by the law 

 of priority, the ' first s})ecies ' rule of type fixation, or any of the 

 other principles of nomenclature against which such protests have 

 been directed ; and yet this is due purely to a question of orni- 

 thology with which the rules of nomenclature and the ' name 

 jugglers ' have nothing whatever to do. 



" Now, if the name of a bird is to be used as a medium to exploit 

 personal opinions as to the phylogeny and relationship of species 

 we had better devise some other means of tagging a species so 

 that someone else will know what we are talking about. 



" If, on the other hand, the name of the bird is to constitute 

 such a ' tag,' then we should by some international and arbitrary 

 agreement decide these disputed cases, so that we may have the 

 same uniformity ornithologically that we seem to have at last 

 attained nomenclatitrally. 



" The great majority of ornithologists are pretty well agreed 

 upon the great majority of genera, and there will not be so very 

 many to be settled arbitrarily, but such arbitrary action, if we are 

 to have a permanent and universal system of names, seems to be 

 inevitable. Those who wish to make further subdivisions may 

 still use the suppressed names as sub-genera in any discussion or 

 systematic monograph. 



" Another })hase of the same question is the increasing tendency 

 to recognize finer and finer generic divisions, a matter which has 



