54 CAMPBELL— Ornithological Nomenclature. 



were never resuscitated? Noue whatever. Why then use 

 obsolete names that are valueless? Seeing Mr. Mathews gives 

 an '^ornithological opening" here, I may say that his supposed 

 sub-species for the Victorian bird as differing from that of New 

 South Wales is extremely doubtful. From much material, no 

 tangible difference ("darker colouration above and below, es- 

 pecially noticeable on the breast" — is too poor) can be dis- 

 ceined between the birds of New South Wales (type loc), Vic- 

 toria, and adjacent parts of South Australia. Therefore, the 

 Mathewian name ci/gnns with Cotton's rodorhiincha will both 

 fall into the drag-net of Synonymy and Gould's time-honoured 

 name rufigularis prevail for the South-east Australian bird, at 

 least. 



Mr. Mathews is deservedly solicitous for the rights of the 

 original author, "irrespective of his greatness or the size of his 

 work." "But many that are first shall be last," is an eternal 

 truism Moreover, if one consults the "History" of nomen- 

 clature he will find that the early American Committee has left 

 on record "the rules to that end (uniformity of practice) should 

 be formed with reference to i-inciples and without regard to 

 personality, and that thereto-;' the matter of justice or injus- 

 tice is, in this connection, without pertinence." 



In a strictly technical sense there is nothing inconsistenc 

 with the history of the original law of priority and the use say, 

 of Gouldian names (those, of course, that are ornithologically 

 correct) for Australian forms, because the original definition 

 of the law of i>riority did not say. or presume to say. when Aus- 

 tralian Ornithology should begin — with Gould, or any other 

 author. It merely, for the sake of convenience (and without 

 regard for justice or injustice to anyone) stated, the law of 

 priority was " not to extend to antecedent authors'' to the Lin- 

 naeus "Tenth Edition." which obviously does not affect Austra- 

 lian ornithology, the beginnings of which were a century later 

 than Linnaeus. The suppositious case re the same bird having 

 been described in The Victoria )i Naturalist, then in the The 

 Thifi. the latter description to prevail, because of the accom- 

 panying coloured plate, as being analagous to Gouldian names 

 for Australian forms, cited by ^Ir. Mathews is evidently 

 strained and altogether misleading. Neither is it excusable to 

 say Gould's names should not "be standardised, because his great 

 folio work is "expensive and scarce." Instead of Gouldian, 

 some names Mr. Mathews would have us use are absolutely 

 unique, being wholly obsolete and references unobtainable. 



