^'"';^,^^ •] Mathk ws, Secnml Edition of '' Official Check-list." 175 



what ol)viuus that here we had a case of convergence ol superlicia) 

 characters, hut comparison showed that these were not so close 

 as might have been anticipated from the classification, and that 

 superficially the birds could be genericallj' separated. 



If the Council would consider it acceptable, I would draw up 

 the arguments, quite briefly, for and against the whole of the 

 thirty- fwe names included in (i) for the consideration of the 

 ornithologists of Australia, as it seems convenient to have in view 

 the data dealing with these names before conclusions are arrived at. 



2.— Names fixed by B.O.U. list.— Where the B.O.U. Hst is 

 contrary to the international laws I do not counsel its acceptance. 

 It should be remembered that the B.O.U. list is a tentative one, 

 being the first attempt to reconcile the last (and few) supporters 

 of the Stricklandian school with the more (and mucli more 

 numerous) progressive students of British ornithology. So far 

 my forecasts in connection with British ornithology have proved 

 correct in a much quicker time than I anticipated, and I now 

 provide another when I state that the next B.O.U. list will alter 

 Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 to the names I use, and which should be used in the 

 new R.A.O.U. " Check-list." In the " ' Check-Hst ' genera (20), for 

 which there is a valid prior name," appears three names which 

 come under the article regarding " one-letterism " — 



Oxyiira should not be used instead of Erismatura. 



Coracina should not be used instead of Graiicaliis. 



Lonchiira should not be used instead of Miinia. 



It is afterwards noted that many changes may be necessary on 

 account of " one-letterism," and gives the list of names involved. 



Would it not be wise to tackle the matter now and make the 

 changes necessary ? In usage the converse has proved impracti- 

 cable, and my own as well as other workers' attempts to revive 

 rejected names on this account have proved futile. 



I would only make a comment upon the concluding sentences 

 regarding the " generic " standard by pointing out that no 

 c()mj)arison can be made with either the British list or the 

 American list, if facts he considered. Both are dealing with a 

 single faunal element, and to be correct the British list would only 

 be comparable with a Tasmanian one. The British Isles are, 

 zoologically, part of the Pala^arctic region, as Tasmania is part of 

 the Australian region, with this difference : the Tasmanian avifauna 

 is more differentiated from that of the mainland than the British 

 is from that of the Continent. How many genera are repre- 

 sented in the Tasmanian avifauna, on the " Check-list " basis, in 

 proportion to the species ? The proportion would not compare 

 with that of the British Hst. 



I have repeatedly emphasized the fact, displayed by the study 

 of other sciences, that there are three distinct faunal elements in 

 Australian ornithology. This fact alone would compel a higher 

 generic percentage in Australia than in North America, as well 

 as Britain. I use names to express facts, not to hide them, and 

 consequently more generic names are necessary in proportion in 



