^°\^^] CAMPBELL, Zoological Xomcnclaturc. .. 225 



So far as some Australian workers are concerned, the chief ob- 

 jection to the International code is its keystone, namely, the so- 

 called "law of priority," which, if taken away, the code falls 

 to pieces like a house of cards. The date of the Linmean sys- 

 tem (1758) is far back in the dim dawn of Ornithology, when 

 the science was in a crude and confused state, and all the types 

 and specimens have long crumbled to dust and decay. Austra- 

 lian (Jrnithology was born in broader daylight, many years after 

 Linnaeus. It has most of its types preserved in some museum 

 or other, and is comparatively free from complications that beset 

 old world workers, who, in striving to right themselves, turn us 

 upside down by altering Australian bird-names that have been 

 commonly used for 60, 70 and even 100 years, and in endeavour- 

 ing to remove all inconsistencies by the adoption of one basis, 

 and thus — 



"In seeking to undo 



One riddle, and to find the true, 



Will knit a hundred others new." 



There is no doubt that the great Swedish Botanist created a 

 scientific epoch with the introduction of his binary system of 

 nomenclature. And so surely did the immortal John Gould 

 create a purely Ornithological epoch when he gave to the world 

 the high heap of great folio pictorial works, including seven vol- 

 umes and supplement of "The Birds of Australia." (Gould 

 sailed from England in May, 1838, for Australia, and returned 

 laden with new and wonderful spoils of this cotintry in 1840.) 

 One has only to turn up the files of the past to understand how- 

 Gould was appreciated in his own country. The Times (Lon- 

 don), on September 3, 1851, published the long and ably written 

 review, reprinted in our last issue. 



Australians can therefore hardly forget Gould, while many, 

 especially teachers of popular ornithology, approve of the 

 Gouldian limit of priority of names, i.e., for purely endemic 

 species, but, of cour.se, birds of world-wide habitat would con- 

 form to the oldest accepted or authoritative name. We can 

 never hope to kill sentiment. In the Preface to that recent 

 masterpiece, "A Monograph of the Pheasants," by William 

 Beebe, Hy. Fairfield Osborne, President of the New York Zool. 

 Soc, for certain cogent reasons states "the monograph presents 

 a very strong sentimental appeal to all bird lovers !" Sentiment 

 in ornitholog}^ is not dead, as some people suppose. 



The law of priority is as inflexible as it is inartistic. Take, 

 for instance, the classic generic name of the king of our avi- 

 fauna, the Emu. Gould calls it Dromaius. Bedrock priority 

 says Dromeicus. Hear the verdict of the late Professor Alfred 

 Newton, of Cambridge : "The obvious misprint of Dromeicus in 

 this author's (Vieillot) work has been foolishly followed by 

 many naturalists, forgetful that he corrected It a few pages far- 

 ther on to Dromaius" (Dictionary of Birds). The arbitrary 

 law of bedrock priority is also mischievous, discredits many 



