(' AMI' BELL — OrnithdLogicul Nomeii(iature. 53 



begin, he says "The specialist must always surpass in his local 

 study, the best endeavoui- of the general student." Precisely. 

 Mr. Mathews would settle Oi'uithological Nonu-nrlature 

 (Special) by the rules of the Zoological Code (('i^ieral). 

 Ornithology is the most popular of the Natural Sciences. 

 Think of the tens of thousands of young members of llieAudu- 

 bon Societies of America and the (xould Leagu;-s of Australia. 

 These are very important and should be carefully cateicnl for. 

 Does not The 'ihis (1919, p. 771) hint that there is an "Ornitho- 

 logical Code," apart from the International one? 



"The Law of Priority." Mr. Mathews proceeds to say. ''is 

 biised on custom and <m the custom of 1 (»() years,'' to which he 

 might truly add — .1//*^/ tee have not yet reached finaUti/. That 

 there has been no practical finality to the law of priority, is to 

 attack the foundation of the International code. And, if thai 

 code had worked well universally, why has it been found 

 necessary to appoint the l>ii/stema Avium Committee to re- 

 classify the birds of the world? The only real road to finality 

 is to have .4// AHfhorifatire Arny/c* (not necessarily bed-rock 

 priority I declared by some competent commission, such as that 

 pr<)j)osed to (\v:i\ with the Systeuui Avium, Avhen many well- 

 known and api)ropriate names will receive consideration. 



To further quote Mr. Mathew^s — '*A British Ornithologist en 

 deavoured to select the best established name without i-ecognis- 

 ing ])riority and dismally failed." If the late Henry See- 

 bohm is referred to, that name has a halo of undying fame. He 

 was by no means a "faddisi," nor showed '•ignorance of history" 

 of ornithology, nor was "non-scientific." Mr. Mathews in his 

 own '^Rirds of Australia," vol. ^"II., p. 4(55, states: — Seebohm 

 was a "famous worker." Why does Mr. Mathews persist in 

 [)utting the "cart before the horse" — Nomenclature always first : 

 Ornithology, second? Seebohm "dismally failed," as a nomen- 

 clator. \i'f was a ''famous worker," as an ornithologist. 



Mr. Mathews claims to have rescued from oblivion (accord 

 ing to the law of j)riority) John Cotton's + long-lost name for a 

 viiriety of the Spiny-cheeked Honey -eatei- — .{coiithneJidcra rod- 

 nrJnfurha. What iotn of vnluo would science lose if the name 



•FirMt sii^gestfd hv Sir E. Kay I/iinkcsttT, F.R.S., twentv-four voars aRO.— See 

 I'.Z S 1S96. 



tJohn Cotton was the j?randfnther >,: iho rstppmcd Hon. Secretary of the R.A.O.U. 

 Th<- lace Mr. CVitton m f t vjhwblo nianuscr.'itt', well-illnstra'ted, on Au^'t^dlian birdJ. whicfc 

 di'tiiments', vnon unfortunately, unaccounta'ntv di.eaTipeared many yean; ago. 



