iq 1 KENDALL, Some Notes on Vernacular Names. 5 3 



3. Any two or more names or words in joint arbitrary use (Road- 



runner, Turn-stone). 



4. A phrase consisting of an adjective and a noun, together used as a 



mere name : generally written without the hyphen, Redpoll, 

 Yellowlegs, Goldeneye. 



A rough glance shows that to comply with these rules the 

 following changes would be necessary in the recognized Australian 

 list (the amended form being given in each instance, the numbers 

 preceding the names being those in the A.A.A.S. list) : — 



Rule 1. — 532, Nutmeg-Pigeon. 



Rule 2. — (a), 62, Magpie-Lark ; 132, Pheasant-Fantail ; 165, Emu- Wren ; 

 483, Cockatoo-Parrakeet ; 554, Partridge-Pigeon, (b), 31, Winking-Owl; 

 34, Western Winking-Owl ; 683, Diving-Petrel (this section might be 

 used to make an awkward combination — Whistling-Shrike-Thrush). 

 (c), 463, Musk-Lorikeet; 523, Swift-Lorikeet; 526, Night-Parrakeet ; 

 533, Topknot-Pigeon; 542, Flock-Pigeon ; 584, Stone-Plover (as 585); 

 755, Musk-Duck. (d), 129, Wood-Fantail ; 468, Palm-Cockatoo; 506, 

 Mallee-Parrakeet ; 520, Rock-Parrakeet ; 525, Ground-Parrakeet ; 537, 

 Ground-Dove ; 551, Stubble-Quail ; 554, Scrub-Fowl ; 556, Brush-Turkey 

 (as 557); 565, Plain- Wanderer ; 705, Ashy or Sombre Reef-Heron; 

 707, Reef-Heron; 741, Wood-Duck ; 745, Shieldrake or Mountain-Duck. 



Rule 3. — 589, Turn-stone. 



Rule 4. — 125, White-shafted Fantail ; 126, Western Fantail ; 127, 

 Dusky Fantail; 128, Rufous Fantail; 129, Wood-Fantail (2d) ■ 130, 

 Northern Fantail ; 131, White-tailed Fantail ; 132, Pheasant-Fantail (2a) ; 

 133, Black-and-White Fantail; 226, Whiteface ; 227, Chestnut-breasted 

 Whiteface ; 228, Black-banded Whiteface; 229, Wedgebill ; 285, Spine- 

 bill ; 286, White-browed Spinebill. (This rule could hardly be applied to 

 such a case as White-eye, where two vowels follow one another.) 



It will be seen from the foregoing that some 46 changes would 

 be involved in a list of 759 birds were these rules observed, hence 

 the alteration would not be very great. The proposed system 

 would undoubtedly conduce to uniformity, as well as involving 

 little change. In considering it, however, it is necessary to 

 remember that it is very doubtful if inconsistency can be entirely 

 avoided. Exceptions prove the rule. Modern usage in English 

 certainly branches out in two directions. One follows the 

 agglutinative tendency of Aryan tongues, and, starting with a 

 name built up of two or more words, either uses the hyphen to 

 connect them or (probably later) makes them into one word 

 where unification of sense is to be conveyed ; the other treats 

 them as two words, and ignores the connecting link. The latter 

 system is less definite and occasionally misses the precise meaning, 

 the finer sense, the words would bear when joined together. 

 Hence the use of the hyphen seems decidedly preferable. On 

 the other hand, authorities differ widely. The usage of dictionary- 

 makers is very far from uniform, and there is a great difference 

 between the British and American use of the hyphen. Virtually 

 the whole matter resolves itself into one of usage and conven- 

 ience. Probably by avoiding the use of the hyphen greater 

 consistency could be assured. But is consistency everything that 



