224 CAMPBELL, Zoolofiical Xomenclature. TisfS" 



Some remarks on Re-naming Birds and the 

 Rules of Zoological Nomenclature 



By A. J. CAMPBELL, C.M.B.O.U, F.A.O.U. 

 Read at Sydney Session, R.A.O.U., 6/10/192L 



The scientific or technical names of birds constitute at present 

 a burning' question in Ornithological circles all over the Empire. 

 Apparently the stumbling block* has been the so-called "bed-rock 

 priority" of name, which has been in vogue for over UX) years 

 without giving finality to numerous names. It was thought that 

 the International Code of Zoological Xomenclature would settle 

 the question in Zoology generally, but it has failed in Ornithol- 

 ogy in particular. The Code is disregarded by many workers. 



As Linnjeus was the father of the simple forms of binomials 

 in biological nomenclature, it was resolved to make his work 

 {Systevia-Naturer, 1758) the starting point. That is, no name 

 prior to his work was to be recognised as "official." Then came 

 a nomenclatural movement in 1842-3, when the British Associa- 

 tion for the Advancement of Science prepared what was known 

 as "Stricklandian Code." Strange to say, .some American 

 nature societies in 1845 adopted the code before the British As- 

 sociation itself did in 1846. W. H. Dall, an American Zoolo- 

 gist, in 1877 prepared a code for the American A.A.S. said to 

 be one of the best essays on the subject ever compiled, yet it was 

 never wholly adopted by the Americans. 



The American Ornithologists' L'nion adopted what promised 

 to be an excellent Code of Rules, but, as this Society was limited 

 to Ornithology, Zoologists in general had no oj)p(jrtunity of 

 bringing forward their difficulties. At last a French Savant, 

 Raphael Blanchard, conceived the idea of an international code, 

 which was worked into shape at subsequent Zoological Con- 

 gresses—Paris (1889) and Moscow (1892). The German 

 Zoological Society in 1894 adopted a code of its own. When 

 the International Congress next met at Leyden (1895), it was 

 found that Briti.sh systematists followed the Stricklandian code ; 

 the French, the International ; the Germans, their own ; while 

 Americans had a combination of the Stricklandian and other 

 codes. 



At Leyden a commission was appointed to inquire into the 

 different systems, to suggest unification, and to report at follow- 

 ine Congresses. This was done, and was completed at Berne 

 (1904), when a ])ermanent commission was appointed. This 

 commission was, however, only a deliberative and advisory 

 body, with no legislative powers. Neither could the commission, 

 nor the Congress, enforce its rules, and every person is still in a 

 position to follow any code, or prepare his own, if he so desires. 



* The author, of course, expresses his own opinion. (Eds.) 



