Voh ^xv.j Mathkws, Second Edition of " Official Chech-list." 173 



words, l)ut also make a practice oi them, tlilTerentiating liypo- 

 swlphites and hyposul/)//rt/6'.s and /erro-cyanides and /erri-cyanides. 

 Chemistry is, however, an exact science, and I can never 

 imagine a man who can differentiate between CieHioN O7 and 

 ("10H15N O7 worrying at all about the trivial alterations in bird 

 nomenclature one sees pages written about. Ornithologists have 

 seriously argued about the " confusion " that would ensue through 

 the alteration of a bird-name, so our science would never be ranked 

 as an exact science. Again, it might be observed that all the 

 arguments brought forward with regard to alterations in bird- 

 names have been urged on account of the nature of the bird 

 students. 



However, to return to the matter of emendations. The acce})tors 

 of the Stricklandian Code were not imbued with foresight, and 

 consequently treated the Code with carelessness, the excellent 

 provisions therein contained being ignored and neglected, and 

 chaotic condition became imminent. This was due to absolute 

 prejudice against the real workers, and it was soon written that 

 " the Stricklandian Code was more honoured in the breach than 

 in the observance." The supporters of the Stricklandian Code 

 were the British ornithologists of the last generation, and 

 unfortunately the older members of the present generation are 

 more or less prejudiced by the same inaccurate method of working. 

 This is seen in the new B.O.U. list, where an attempt has been 

 made to except some few names from the laws presumably 

 accepted. The prejudice is seen in the fact that the committee 

 would not accept the international laws impHcitly, but decided 

 to savour them with a little indecision. This result has provided 

 the anticipated complications, as will hereafter be noted. 



Reference to the international laws brings us to the last point. 

 The Stricklandian Code was mainly a British proposition, and 

 on the Continent similar codes were prepared, more or less based 

 on that code, and differing in details only. In America an 

 amended code was also prepared, while such action necessitated 

 emendation of the first Stricklandian Code. The existence of 

 these numerous codes provided the reason for an International 

 Code, and this is what I now follow. As might be anticipated, 

 the reconciliation of the various codes was not exactly successful 

 in eliminating all the conflicting factors at the first time. 



Therefore, the ruling with regard to " one-letterism " became 

 a tentative one, no law being laid down, only a recommendation 

 reading — " It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names 

 differing from one already in use only in termination or in a sHght 

 variation in spelling, which might lead to confusion. But, when once 

 introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this account." 

 This recommendation was in direct opposition to the usage of a 

 century, and was consequently ignored. Further, the old codes, 

 which were still commonly used wherever they did not exactly 

 contradict the international laws, made exactly the opposite 

 conclusion. In ornithology, Hartert, Hellmayr, and one or two 



