54 BKiriSH BIRDS. [vol. ix. 



Fu/finus afi.tt77iilis baro/i. 



This iiaino might be used for the Little Dusky Slicanvater of the 

 North Atlantic Ocean. A more unfortunate little bird as regards 

 names it would be hard to find. The B.O. U. Committee pathetically 

 remark upon this and add confusion by selecting as species-name a 

 name obviously wrong. Now Dr. Hartert assails " buroli " and wtnild 

 reject it in favour of godmani. The facts in connection with the 

 former name are simple : Bonaparte described a bird and his descrip- 

 tion, as all his description'^ are, is faulty, but the faults are somewhat 

 superficial. We have all the specimens he referred tojiis species and thejf 

 all prove conspecific : sure'y then the name is available. Just above 

 Dr. Hartert advocates the retention of Gmelin's faulty description 

 for the Gull-billed Tern, of which we have not the original specimens 

 and states : " If this practice (of rejecting faulty descriptions) were 

 followed hundreds of well-known names would ha\e to l)e rejected," 

 a conclusion I emphatically endorse. Then why should there be 

 any argument about baroli '! 1 can see no valid reason and 1 might 

 state that I, myself, first brought the name godmani to tlie notice of 

 British ornithologists, so that iny prejudice would be in faxoiu- of the 

 latter name. The acceptance of the undoubtedly applicable baroli 

 \\x)uld certainly be an aid to uniformity and fixity. 



I hope that these emendations will be included in the list of 

 alt(M'ations and wo will thereby gain a year or more in the race for 

 uniformity, — a race rapidly growing to a close if the signs be road 

 aright. Tom Iredale. 



Mr. Iredale raises some critical points and I will discuss them 

 seriatim. 



A PUS. 



I cannot admit that an error of traii'^litcrat ion is evid(>nt. The 

 rendering of Opinion 3l> clearly shows that we do not lightly judge 

 a different spelling to be " an error of transliteration," and that we 

 consider cases worthy of an " Opinion " in which we alter spelling, 

 and that we only do so if we consider the error evident. This is not 

 the case with the generic names Apus and Apos. As Scopoli introduced 

 both these names, it is more logical and more polite to th<> author to 

 suppose that ho did so purposely, than that he erroneously trans- 

 literated the name A pits in one case. Both names can be u.sed as 

 well as Galcrita and Galerida, Carabus and Carapus, Picus and Pica, 

 Polyodontus and Polyodontas, etc., etc., etc. 



HIPUNDO AND CHE LI DON. 



Mr. Iredale insists that, rigidly construed, Forster did not fix the 

 type of Hirundo, and that, on the basis of Opinion (52 of the 

 International Commission, which contends " that there is no authority 

 in the Code for excluding a species from consideration in selecting it as 

 type because it had already been made the type of some other geiuis," 

 the action of Gray, who, in 1840, regarded as type of Hinnido the 

 Swallow {H. ruMtica) must be accepted. I am obliged to Mr. Iredale 

 ff)r explaining this, in Hit. 



I differ from this view for the following reasons : Although, rigidly 

 construed, For.ster, in 1817, did not formally fix the type of Hinindn, 

 he was the first author who finely divided Linneus's mixed a.ssemblage 

 of Hirundo, which originally contained Swallows, Martins, Swifts and 

 Goatsuckers, not only separating the Swifts and (goatsuckers, which 



