220 Correspondence. [isfTan 



a " doubtful " drawing of a " botanist " with a Gouldian name 

 or figure. Tlie i)ros and cons of such a comparison are therefore 

 presumptively impossible. Why was such a sentence written ? — 

 I am, &c., 



GREGORY M. MATHEWS. 

 Langley Mount, Watford, England, 16/11/11. 



[Mr. Mathews is apparently incorrect, if his surmise be rightly 

 understood. Mr. Milligan is not only familiar with the range 

 and extent of Brisson's work, but is also a sound authority (by 

 virtue of his legal training) on the principles and canons of the 

 " International Rules " and those of the American Check-list Com- 

 mittee. Mr. Milligan's views on the so-called "law of priority" 

 are well known to Australian ornithologists, and most probably 

 his desire in writing as he did was to force from Mr. Mathews the 

 admission that the " rule of priority " was, after all, only a " law 

 of expediency." Mr. Milligan has openly contended that, if the 

 rule were strictly a " rule of priority," all pioneers in zoology, 

 including Brisson and all pre-Linnean authors, would receive 

 acknowledgment. In point of fact, there seems little difference 

 between Mr. Mathews and Mr. Milligan on the subject, for Mr. 

 Mathews, in his first letter {Emu. ante, p. 53), states : — " 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." 



On the question of " hair-splitting," Mr. Mathews is possibly 

 again incorrect. Mr. Milligan has always advocated that, to be 

 thorough, every constant variation, small (but not trivial) as well 

 as great, should be distinguished — obviously a different pro- 

 position to " hair-splitting." a method which causes a division 

 without ascertaining a difference. 



Lastly, Mr. Mathews is " unable to understand," or has not 

 fathomed the sentence of criticism {Emu, ante, p. 130) — " Why 

 rely on the doubtful drawings of a botanist as against the 

 life-hke coloured figures of .... Gould ? " In Novitates 

 Zoologies, vol. xviii., Mr. Mathews writes : — " Re-examination of 

 the Watling drawings having indicated errors of identification 

 on the part of Sharpe with regard to some species, which are 

 noted in this paper, I carefully went into the matter again." If 

 two such eminent authorities as Sharpe and Mathews differ about 

 a doubtful drawing, Gould's plates are good enough for Aus- 

 tralians. Moreover, a " Recommendation " under Article 28 of 

 " International Rules" reads : — " A specific name accompanied by 

 both description and figure stands in preference to one accom- 

 panied only by a diagnosis or only by a figure." — Eds.] 



