Vol. XI, 

 191. 



1 Correspondence. ^37 



interestetl in Auslr;ili;iii ornithology, to express appreciation of 

 the invaluable services rendered by Mr. Mathews in the above 

 connection, and although many Australian ornithologists, in- 

 cluding myself, are not altogether ml idem with Mr. Mathews in 

 his recent renuutiation and abandonment of well-settled laws, 

 we can still (notwithstanding his upbraiding) admire the work he 

 has done and is doing, and can justly appraise its value. 



For the jnu-poses of comment, Mr. Mathews' letter may, 1 think, 

 be divided into two sections, namely : — The advocacy of (a) the 

 government of scientific names by the International Code, and 

 {b) the trinominal system in preference to the binominal one. 



In dealing with both sections collectively, it will, perhaps, be 

 as well to bear in mind that the only representation Australia had 

 at the International Congress which formulated the Code was that 

 of Cireat Britain ; consequently, until the British ornithological 

 authorities give some indication or declare their intention of 

 abandoning the 15th edition of the Systema NaturcB (the recog- 

 nition and adoption of which Mr. Mathews alleges is the " gist " 

 of the whole trouble), Australia, obviously, cannot decorously 

 move. To my mind, the difficulty may be readily overcome by 

 Mr. Mathews convincing the British Museum authorities that 

 their adherence to the 13th edition is a " conservatism antagonistic 

 to progress." If that be done (and it should not be difficult of 

 achievement if Mr. Mathews' allegations as to the result of con- 

 servatism be true), and the authorities named espouse the new 

 laws, Australia will perforce fall into line. 



Upon the " law of priority," it must be frankly admitted that 

 Mr. Mathews has very ably and succinctly preferred, on behalf of 

 deceased ornithologists, well-founded claims for recognition of 

 their work, and Mr. Mathews' efforts in th's direction indicate 

 a very high sense of justice. At the same time, it is most difficult 

 to reconcile that gentleman's advocacy of those claims with his 

 recent action in seeking to deprive the deceased naturalist Brisson 

 of the fruits of his labours by deleting his name from the author- 

 ship of so many genera. I expect, of course, to be told that his 

 (Brisson's) generic names were " nude " names, and that he did 

 not apply the principles of binary nomenclature according to the 

 Articles ; but, although the advancement of such an argument 

 (if it be advanced) may be an excellent ground for the rescission 

 of such an arbitrary and inequitable rule, it cannot for one 

 moment be regarded (if it be so pleaded) as a justification for a 

 positive injustice. 



Dealing with the second section of Mr. Mathews' letter — namely, 

 the preferential adoption of the trinominal system — I confess that 

 I have a very strong leaning towards trinomials, as by their use 

 the different shades of distinction between closely-related forms 

 may be readily indicated. On the other hand, there is the radical 

 objection to the system by reason of its cumbersomeness : and, 

 again, to attach three very long Latin or Greek names to a very 

 small bird will undoubtedly militate against the pojHilarization 



