MATIII'JW^—nrnilhnlogic.:} Xi„nrn,-hliure. 23 



Birds of Hie I j)}»er (Tonlbnrn, Fort riiilli]). New South Wales, 

 in the Tasmanian Jonrnal of Natural Science, Vol. III. No. 5, 

 July. 1S4S, p. 3(11, ct srq.. and there named on p. 362 Antlio- 

 chaera Eodorhjincha. differentiatinj>; it from AcantJwge)n/s 

 Rufogiihin'.'^ Gould. This appears to have been overlooked by 

 all Australian as well as British ornith<)lojj:ists, and refers to 

 the bird T recently named Acanfhar/on/f! Rufogularis Ci/gnis. 

 By the use of the Law of Priority I immediately use Cotton's 

 name, and oive him the credit for his discovery, though seventy 

 years late. Would Australians be pleased were I to ignore it, 

 and continue the use of my own name? I think not. 



It seems to have been overlooked by the Australian oppo- 

 nent of the Law of Priority that it is as old as the binomial 

 system and is the custom, and that the objectors who cite cus- 

 tom as their object are ignorant of what custom is. The Law 

 of Priority is based on custom, and on the custom of one hun- 

 dred and sixty years. 



GcuKfi i^plifting. — This is the most debatable subject in con- 

 nection with ornithological nomenclature, and a few words may 

 be given to it. Birds do not show well-defined differential 

 features, as they have so much uniformity in development. 

 Consequently, very minor characters are used for separating 

 groups, and. moreover, no great stress can be laid upon the 

 development of any one organ. The older ornithologists, 

 endeavouring to classify birds, selected one organ alone, and 

 naturally created groups of unequal value and incongruous com- 

 ponents. Endeavouring to rectify such errors, many more 

 groups became necessary, and as each student worked at a 

 giinip, ho accepted minor characters shill as.important, until 

 apparently a superfluity of generic groups were existent. 



Casual students then interfered, and without as careful 

 examination lumped again, once more associating dissimilar 

 entities. Recently all the more exact school have endeavoured 

 to reconcile the two by means of close, detailed criticism of 

 every organ, as well as consideration of the life history and evo- 

 lution of the forms. In order to ar.rive at a perfect system, it 

 is necessim' to dissociate all tihe "lump<Hl" genera, and then, as 

 the knowledge of evolution increases, to reform these split 

 genera into natural groups, according to the evolution and 

 develoymient of the species. 



It is a remarkable fact that all specialists. 'iumi»ers" in 

 the beginning of their studies, become "sjditters" as they study 

 nion^ cktsely Ihe development of the forms. ''Lumj)ers," it 



