226 CAMPBELL, Zoological Nomenclature. FutfaT 



standard works, and, above all, is unnecessary for the study of 

 ornithological science. 



Referring to the Emu we read the bird "was first described 

 and figured under the name of the New Holland Cassowary, in 

 Governor Phillii)'s Voyage to Botany Bay, published in 1789. To 

 this work. Dr. Latham contributed very considerably in the 

 ornithological department, and it is therefore j)robable that the 

 description of this remarkable bird was furnished by him. The 

 figure, taken from a drawing made on the spot by Lieut. Watts, 

 is extremely defective. In the ensuing year a second figure, 

 taken from the same specimen as the former, but very different 

 in appearance and equally inaccurate, was given in White's 

 Voyage to New South Wales, the Zoological part of which work 

 appears to have been superintended by Dr. Shaw, whose Miscel- 

 lany likewise contains a copy of the same figure." — (Gardens 

 and Menagerie of the Zoological Society. Delineated vol. ii.). 



The foregoing appears to be the earliest and very interesting 

 history of the Emu, and well worth being cjuoted in Cayley's 

 "Birds of Australia." My point, however, is, because Shaw 

 called the Emu a Cassowary ("Southern Cassowary"), accord- 

 ing to Gould; see Handbook, vol. ii., p. 200), why should that 

 invalidate the widely known name Casiiarius australis for the 

 Australian Cassowary? In the realm of common sense the thing 

 is preposterous, for there can possibly arise no confusion in 

 using the prior name australis, for the Australian species or sub- 

 s{)ecies as the case may be. The suggested alteration to the 

 name johnsoni tends to the "chaos of words" from which the 

 "Rules" are intended to rescue science. 



"No changes should rest on uncertainties" (W^ H. Dall). A 

 good maxim. Who was Bosc? It is said he described a live 

 Quail from anywhere. At least Mr. Matthews had to declare 

 its locality 122 years afterwards. There is also the uncertainty 

 as to its species. But why hanker after an absolutely obsolete 

 name to resuscitate which is not an iota of value to science, espe- 

 cially when we have had John Gould's immortal plates and 

 names in vogue for nearly 80 years ! 



Then there is the "Priority" puzzle about our Snipe, under 

 the singularly alliterative title "Scopoli or Scopolax." "Let 

 sleeping dogs lie." Because in ancient times Sanderlings, Snipes, 

 and Sandpipers were, as you may well suppose, much mixed, not 

 only in companies, but also in names, australis for Gallinago 

 cannot standi Who sa'id so? Not G. R. Gray, because in all his 

 "official" editions ("official" because issued under the authority 

 of that National Institution, the British Museum), he places 

 harivickii as a synonym to australis; likewise do the later British 

 Museum's "Catalogues of Birds," as well as does Henr>' Seebohm 

 — that great Plover authority. Did Gray declare the type of 

 hardwickii by "original designation" ? There was no such term 

 in his day. The expressions "Type by original designation," 

 "Type by absolute tautonymy," etc., apply, I take it, subse(iuent 



