('AMI' BE LI J -Renaming Australian Birih. 2.-? 



Vernacularly I propose to designate it the Southern While 

 browed Tree-creei)er. Time and space will not permit of a 

 minute description of all the birds seen, as no fewer 

 than 76 species were identified during my short seven 

 days' stay in camp, which w'as by no means a bad record in 

 addition to the hundred and one things that claim one'rt 

 attention in connection with camp life. The end of the 

 week came all too soon, and I packed up and caught the 

 early train on the morning of the 17th, arriving in Adelaide 

 after the usual long tedious day's journey in a slow train. 



Renaming Australian Birds. 



To the Editors, "The S.A. Ornithologist", 

 Sirs, 



The Hon. Secretary of the S.A. Ornithological Associa- 

 tion was good enough to hand to Capt. S. A. White a copy of 

 my address on Nomenclature, apparently for ''review" in this 

 journal. (See ante p. 232). 



A review is a summary of what an article, book, etc., con- 

 tains. There is a difference hetween a review and a critique, 

 and Capt. White has criticised my address somewhat 

 biassedly, therefore please permit me a brief rejoinder. 



In the first place, I absolutely refrain from personal mat- 

 ters, therefore I pass over Capt. White's reference to the 

 writer's "very conservative views", and the beginning of his 

 critique, and near the end of it, his reference apparently to a 

 connection of his — "a great field ornithologist", whom Gould 

 was supposed to have treated shabbily. 



1: Capt. White declares that nomenclature is a science, 

 thus staking his opinion against standard dictionaries. 

 "Chambers's Encyclopaedia", for instance, furnishes a com- 

 plete list of riO concrete and abstract sciences, but does not 

 include nomenclature. 



2. The Army. Navy, and Civil Service promotions have 

 nothing to do with ornithology. No, but they have to nomen- 

 clature, by analogy, i.e., by the selection of the most fit person 

 (not necessarily prior or senior), or name, in the case of 

 nomenclature. 



3. Cai)t. White contends that Could was a strict priorist 

 — a helpful statement in favour of, and not against, using his 

 nomenclature which was up to date,^and a good starting point 

 for some Australian names — those 'that are ornithologically 

 correct. 



