V"'^-^^>^'-l Correspondence. 53 



The strongest feature of the International Code is what is 

 known as the " law of priority." By this law the correct name 

 for any bird is that given by its first describer or discoverer. 

 Now, my rigid acceptance of this law has apparently given 

 offence to my Australian friends, yet therein they show a strange 

 inconsistency. Without exception, workers in ornithology desire 

 to have their work duly recognized, and one way is the quotation 

 of the author of a new species and the use of the name proposed 

 by him. This is especially desired by every working ornithologist, 

 and the only way they can expect to have their claims acknow- 

 ledged is through the working of the law of priority. Yet these 

 same workers decry my alterations as " upsetting " names 

 commonly in use by them ; but if the law of priority is applicable 

 to present-day workers, how much more should it be meted to 

 those whose works are all that speak for them ! It should be 

 remembered that these early writers, whose names I accept, were 

 quite as enthusiastic and earnest as any of our own time. It 

 cannot be denied that it is due to such writers that their names 

 should be recognized, as it is only just that the merit should be 

 given to those whose right it is. That is all I am doing. 



The gist of the whole trouble at present is that the " Catalogue 

 of Birds " of the British Museum, which work has been accepted 

 as a standard authority, did not follow the loth but the 12th 

 edition of the " Systema Naturae " of Linne, and, moreover, 

 the law of priority was only half-heartedly accepted, custom 

 being allowed to overrule it in many cases. When I made up my 

 " Hand-list " I used the British Museum " Hand-list " as a basis ; 

 consequently many alterations have to be now made. However, 

 I am hoping that,^ by the time I have finished, the nomenclature 

 of Australian birds will be comparatively fixed, and comparable 

 with that of North American birds, which has been arrived at 

 by 30 years' co-operation and criticism. At the present time the 

 Pala^arctic avifauna is being carefully worked at, and the correct 

 nomenclature determined, by Dr. Ernst Hartert, of Tring. I 

 am much interested in this, as the majority of the Australian 

 Charadriiformes occur in that fauna as breeding birds. 



I would like to impress that the Code is made governing all 

 zoology, and that its jn-ovisions are therefore extensive. Laws 

 to control Australian ornithological names, not subservient to the 

 International Code, as suggested by some writers, are, of course, 

 a practical impossibility. Objection has been made to the 

 alteration of generic names on account of their pre-occupation 

 in other branches of zoology. To those who would thus plead 

 for the retention of an invalid name I would point out the incon- 

 venience such a course would cause to workers who have to review 

 faunas. The only means of knowing whether a name refers to an 

 insect, mammal, or bird is by the operation of the law of priority, 

 and hence validity of the earliest name. Otherwise, we should 

 have the absurdity of never knowing whether a writer was dealing 

 with an insect or a bird, and consequent confusion. The recorders 



