Occasional Notes. 27 



anil generally (li.stributed species is a niodern innovation 

 which does not commend itself to common sense, when it 

 is remembered thut most of them are in the habit of migrating 

 to and from the Continent. This periodical migration is 

 adniitt(;d by the authors of the list (p. 42) in the case of the 

 great tit, yet they propose to distinguish the " British form^^ 

 of this bird as Farus major newtoni. These distinctions 

 apparently are based upon the very slightest differences in 

 shade of colour, due to hatural causes — age, sex, or 

 season — and if a series of continental and British examj)les 

 are laid out side by side the colours will be found to inter- 

 grade so insensibly that it is impossible to say where one 

 " form " ends and the other begins. 



In regard to such changes as we have indicated our com- 

 plaint is that so far from bringing about uniformity in 

 nomenclature, they only create unnecessary confusion, and 

 establish no finality. To give a sing'e example, let us take 

 the case of the familiar merlin, which has been known as 

 Falco aesalon since 1788, when Gmelin adopted that specific 

 name from Brisson's descri{)tion. From that date this name 

 was in general use until 1874, when Sharpe, desiring to give 

 priority to an older name, substituted Falco regulus of Pallas, 

 1773, and accordingly this name found its way into Vol. I. 

 of the 'British Museum Catalogue of Birds,' and, being 

 "published by authority," was in a fair way of being adopted 

 by a younger generation of naturalists. It was discovered, 

 however, that regulus of Pallas was after all not the earliest 

 specific name for the merlin, for Tunstall, in his •' Ornithologia 

 Britannica/ 1771, had already used the name aesalon. Ac- 

 cordingly aesalon (from Pliny's name for the merlin, aLaciXwv) 

 was reinstated, and has been in general use until the present 

 time. Messrs. Hartert and Co. now propose that regulus 

 should be once more restored, on the ground that Tunstall's 

 work, being merely a list of names without descriptions, 

 should not be quoted, though they inconsistently adopt (p. Ill) 

 Tunstall's name for the peregrine. Tunstall employ in o- 

 Brisson's name aesalon (as did also Gmelin in 1778) there 

 could be no possible doubt, from their description, as to the 



