SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. "JT^ 



OPINION 83 



ACANTHIZA PYRRHOPVGIA ViGORS AND HORSFIELD, 1 827, VERSUS 

 ACANTHIZA PYRRHOPYGIA GoULD, 1 848 



SUMMARY. — The principle of the Rule of Homonyms is that any properly pub- 

 lished identical name of later date is " stillborn and cannot be brought to life." 



Acanthi.za pyrrhopygia Vigors and Horsfield, 1827, invalidates Acanthiaa pyrrho- 

 pygia Gould, 1848. 



Statement of case. — A. J. Campbell, Box Hill, Victoria, Aus- 

 tralia, presents the following case for opinion : 



Does Acanthisa pyrrhopygia Gould (" Birds of Australia," vol. III., pi. 58, 

 1848) stand? (Type specimen No. 17595, in Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia.) 



The name pyrrhopygia is not a homonym (of Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Vigors 

 and Horsfield, Travis. Linn. Soc, vol. XV., p. 227, 1827) according to Article iS^ 

 that is, the same name for another " species of the same genus." 



The intention of Articles 34 and 35 is clearly to prevent confusion such as 

 might arise by having the same designation, or name-label for two different 

 birds (other than the same species). Plainly there should not be an Acanthiaa 

 pyrrhopygia of 1827 and another Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of 1848 (different 

 species). 



Gould changed the word Acanthiza into Hylacola but did not alter the 

 specific name pyrrhopygia belonging to the original name-label. Therefore, 

 the identical name pyrrhopygia of Vigors and Horsfield is accounted for being 

 still in use for the bird described by them (now a Hylacola). As Gould's 

 pyrrhopygia was another name-label given to a true Acanthiza. it could not 

 be one and the same name used by Vigors and Horsfield and therefore the 

 article does not apply. 



Again, as Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of Vigors and Horsfield has not been in 

 use since 1842 and Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of Gould has been in common usage 

 since 1848, it is evident that no confusion whatever resulted and the article 

 does not apply. 



The International Code was founded primarily on the Strickland Code (1842) ; 

 Rule 10 of the latter Code reads : " A name should lie changed which has been 

 proposed for some other genus in zoology, or for some other species in the 

 same genus when still retained for such genus, or species." 



Opinion of a Barrister-at-Law : Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Gould, all turns on 

 what is a homonym and in what cases it must be rejected. A homonym is 

 "one and the same name for two different things." If that were all, and cz'ery 

 homonym is to be rejected, Gould's Acanthiza pyrrhopygia would fall, for it 

 and Vigor's and Horsfield's are the same name for two different birds. But by 

 Article 35 it is not every homonym which is to be rejected, but only such a 

 specific name as has previously been used for another species of the same genus. 

 Now, Acanthiza pyrrhopygia had not been used for another species of Acan- 

 thiza before Gould used it, though it had been used for a sp?cics of a genus 

 which is now conceded not to be an Acanthiza, or because it is gcnerically 

 separate, /. e., Hylacola. So, unless it is to be argued that ffylacola and 



