2-1 M ATRt:]]' S—Urii:thi>Jn.il-al Xcminidotar,'. 



more interested in dissectinfj:, neplertino; the fact that tlieir work 

 is useless if their beast be wronoly identified. These continually 

 arc:ne that names mean nothing; yet all the time are desirous 

 of establishing knowledge. Knowledge without names is chaos, 

 and this fa<t has now been recognised. To attend to the tech- 

 nical difficulties that arise in connection with some naiae', an 

 International Commission was appointed, and the Commission 

 states an opinion upon debatable points, and these opinions are 

 later considered by International Congresses, and become Laws. 



The above short resume has outlined the development of 

 our present nomenclatural laws, and it may help if more 

 particular attention is given to a few points, such as the Law 

 of Priority. The mere mention of the word priority in con- 

 nection with names published long ago appeal's to cause irrita- 

 tion to some men who. in their own discoveries, endeavor to 

 snatch days for the sake of priority. The unreasonable alM 

 tude is inexplicable, and a prioritarian should be consistent. 

 T have noted that a British ornithologist endeavoured to select 

 the best established name without recognising priority, and 

 dismally failed; now we have an Australian claiming pi-iority 

 for a certain Avork because it was the standard, though well 

 aware of his uncomfortable position in the fact that the w ork 

 was so expensive and scarce as to be available only to a few 

 workers. This is the more inconsistent because in his later, 

 more popular, and easily accessible handbook, the author had 

 changed a large number of names on the score of priority alone. 

 It has been proved by usage and custom that only absolute 

 priority is acceptable. If any op]>onent Avill but reasonably 

 consider the matter, he will find it the only real solution. As 

 instance, a bird is discovered in Australia, and described in the 

 Victorian Naturalist. A few weeks afterwards the same bird 

 is nametl with a coloured i>laie in the "Ibis." The latter work 

 circulates all over the world, while the former does not. Is it 

 justice Ihat the wiriter in the "Ibis." or the first disfovet'cr, 

 should have the better claim? The Law of Priority enables 

 the local writer to ^et his due. It is unfair to claim that the 

 coloured plate (ff the bettei' situated worker should be the 

 standard, and that the hard working field naturalist should be 

 ignored; yet this is being advocated indirectly by a Avell-known 

 Australian. 



Personally, 1 have advocated, and always will do, the abso 

 lute right of the first discoverer, irrespective of his greatness 

 or the size of his work. Another instance: I have just dis- 

 covered that a writer named John Cotton published a List of 



