Occasional Notes. 29 



In pleading for all these changes on the score of effecting 

 '* uniformity," Messrs. Hartert and Co. in their introduction 

 make the extraordinary statement that "we have neglected 

 for 150 years one of the requisites of greatest importance.'' 

 They altogether ignore the work of the British Association 

 connnittees of 1842 and 1863, and the British Ornithologists' 

 Union in 1883, although these committees included such 

 well-known biologists as Darwin, Owen, Henslow, Jenyns^ 

 AVestvvood, Yarrell, Strickland, Jardine, Wallace, Sclater, 

 Spence Bate, Bentham, Hooker, Huxley, and Newton, all 

 of whom thought it desiral)le that no names should be adoi)ted 

 of an earlier date than 1766, the date of the twelfth edition 

 of Linnpeus, the last published in his lifetime. 



Notwithstanding this weighty expression of opinion, and 

 the protest of the memorialists of 1908 already referred to, 

 the authors of the new list of British birds adopt the tenth 

 edition of the ' Systema,' 1758, thereby giving rise to innumer- 

 able changes of names to no advantage. Having then fixed 

 upon the date 1758 as the starting point, they rake up from 

 long-forgotten works subsequently published names not 

 hitherto heard of, and propose to substitute them for those 

 which, from long use, have become well established. Hence 

 the present trouble. It appears that they base their list on 

 rules drawn np by an international committee in 1905, though 

 surely, as sticklers for priority, they should abide by the well- 

 considered rules framed by the earlier committees of 1842 

 and 1863. 



Mr. Eagle Clarke, writing in the 'Scottish Naturalist,' has 

 put the matter fairly in saying that " many of the changes 

 in the new li^t are made on trivial grounds, while others show 

 a total disregard for the serious confusion their acceptance 

 would entail." 



Dr. P. L. Sclater, who has published a commentary on the 

 new list in the current number of ' The Ibis,' expresses his 

 o{)inion that " it contains some very objectionable features.'' 

 In order to show the changes which would have to be made 

 in the 'List of British Birds' drawn up in 1883 by a com- 

 mittee of the British Ornithologists' Union — [lopularly known 



