^'"|- ^^'1 Correspondence. 219 



Natur.T," employ trinomials to indicate sub-sj^ecies, and reject 

 the useless generic names adopted l)y Shari)e in the " Hand-list 

 of Birds." It is thus apparent that my nomenclature (errors 

 excepted) must be approved by Mr. Milligan. 



As regards the other points of Mr. Milligan's letter, discussion 

 would scarcely be jirofitable. The note regarding my rejection 

 of Brisson's generic names shows that Mr. Milligan either does 

 not know anything whatever al:)out Brisson's work or he has very 

 unhappily frametl that paragraph. Birisson was the greatest 

 ornithologist of the eighteenth century, and his work is the most 

 used work of reference of that period. Living at the same time 

 as Linnc, his knowledge of ornithology far surpassed that of the 

 great systematist, but he did not use a binomial nomenclature, 

 and for this reason his names are inadmissible. It has been 

 decided that Linne's lotli edition, which first proposed a binomial 

 nomenclature for zoology throughout, l)e accepted as the starting- 

 point of zoological nomenclature, and that only writers who 

 accepted Linne's system be recognized. It should be remembered 

 that there were many writers on various subjects for many years 

 afterwards who refused to have anything to do with Linne's 

 methods, and these have been most conscientiously ignored save, 

 in ornithology, in the case of Brisson. The admission of excep- 

 tions breaks down the rigid application of the laws, and there- 

 fore I do not admit of any exception whatever. In Brisson's 

 work, 1,386 (according to Allen) species are fully described and 

 named, yet none of Brisson's specific names are used, simply 

 because he was not a binomial writer. To my mind, there is more 

 " positive injustice " in this action, but I accept the laws. 



When I quoted Mr. North's words re trinomials I added a 

 further sentence, and noted that North was not a user of tri- 

 nomials. I clearly perceived the innuendo, and would have 

 suggested the reading of a double innuendo regarding hair- 

 splitting in Mr. Milligan's re-quotation had I not in front of me 

 a vigorous defence of hair-splitting by Mr. Milligan himself (Emu, 

 vol. iii., p. 245, 1904). If each species had only one sub-species, 

 then would Mr. Milligan's suggestion regarding the nomenclature 

 have been valuable ; but, as sometimes sub-species of a species 

 run into the teens, it is impossible. Such ideas have been 

 attempted in other branches, but none has yet been found prac- 

 ticable. However, we have now reached the point of convergence, 

 and henceforth Australian ornithologists will j^resent a united 

 front in that they will accept the International Code in its 

 entirety. 



With regard to the comment on p. 130, answer is almost un- 

 necessary except as regards the sentence — " Well may Australians 

 ask — ' Why rely on the doubtful drawings of a botanist as against 

 the life-like coloured figures of so great an ornithologist and 

 author as Gould ? ' ' Bed-rock priority run riot,' people are apt 

 to say." I am quite unable to understand this sentence, as in the 

 paper under notice I can find no instance where I have contrasted 



