LETTERS. 231 



" The name of a genus or species can only be that name under 

 which it was first designated, on the condition : 



" (a) That its name was published, and defined or indicated." 

 As will be seen, the whole question tvirns on the word " indicated." 



No description whatever is given in Forster's Catalogue, and for that 

 reason the names are, in my opinion, neither " defined nor indicated," 

 and therefore should not be used. Supposing last year I had 

 published a list of birds and in that list occurred, " Accentor 

 harterti, British Hedge Sparrow," would Dr. Hartert have allowed my 

 name to stand ? I think (and hope) not. It is no argument to say 

 that because Boie gave no description that therefore Forster's names, 

 which are equally lacking in that respect, should be used. Two wronga 

 never yet made a right. If Boie gave no descriptions, his names have 

 no right to stand, but it is certainly no reason for using Forster's. 



Dr. Hartert says " Riparia," Forster, has been accepted. I do not 

 know by whom, and with such opportunities as I have had I have been 

 unable to find a reference to it, nor does Dr. Hartert support his state- 

 ment except by a single reference to a writer in 1908 in a German 

 scientific periodical. Bvtt " one Swallow does not make a summer," 

 and it is certainly a stretch of imagination to speak of one reference 

 as " accepted." It seems to me therefore that Forster's names have 

 no right whatever to be used, and should be ruled out as noinina nuda, 

 and that we may still, with a clear conscience, use Hirundo for the 

 Swallow, Chelidon for the House-Martin, and Coiile for the Sand-Martin. 



The validity or otherwise of Boie's names I leave to others to thrash 

 out, but anyway they cannot affect the argument as regards Forster's. 



J. Lewis Bonhote. 



P.S. — May I direct Dr. Hartert's attention to the rules of the Inter- 

 national Committee, Proc. Int. Zool. Congr. Berlin, pp. 888 and 969, 

 re Latin terminations, e.g., ^githalxxs, not Mgithalos ; Tiirdus philo- 

 melos, etc. ? — J. L. B. 



To the Editors of British Birds. 

 THE POSITIONS ASSUMED BY BIRDS IN FLIGHT. 

 SiRS^ — I have read Mr. Beetham's paper on " The Positions assumed 

 by Birds in Flight " with interest. When he says (p. 167) that the 

 " unfolding of the units of the wing seems to be sequential, starting with 

 the humerus, and not simultaneous," I must join issue with him. 

 With regard to the raising of the humerus, I did not know that anyone 

 had maintained that this extended the rest of the wing. So far we are 

 in agreement. The region of controversy begins at the elbow- joint. 

 When a bird's wing is straightened at the elbow, it straightens also at 

 the wrist — not absolutely, but nearly. This can be proved by taking 

 a freshly-killed bird — anyone who is afraid of being labelled a laboratory 

 theorist can take a live one instead — and bring the humerus into line 

 with the forearm, when the hand will fall into line nearly. When 

 complete straightening at the wrist takes place, no doubt special muscles 

 are brought into play : it is not entirely the work of the triceps muscle 



