NOMENCLATURE OF AMERICAN BIRDS. 1 37 



nomenclature should be susceptible of general ap- 

 plication." From this view-point, then, should 

 the *'Code" be judged; and any rules or pro- 

 visions based on compromise of opinions, as well 

 as any arising from special peculiarities of birds 

 or of ornithological literature, must be regarded as 

 blemishes in the '' Code." 



Speaking only for himself and for his special 

 line of work, the present writer wishes to express 

 his great satisfaction with the "■ Code." In all its 

 essential features the "Code" must commend itself 

 at once to those who have made questions of no- 

 menclature a subject of serious thought, and its 

 rules for the most part need only formulation to 

 secure adoption. But this is not quite true, I 

 think, of all of them. Where so much has been 

 done, and so well done, any word of criticism 

 seems thankless. A few points, however, occur 

 to the writer, viewing this code of rules from the 

 standpoint of his own experience. The first of 

 these is in regard to Canon XVII.^ in so far as 



1 Canon XVII. reads as follows : " Preference between com- 

 petitive specific names published simultaneously in the same work, 

 or in two works of the same actual or ostensible date (no exact 

 date being ascertainable), is to be decided as follows : — 



"i. Of names the equal pertinency of which maybe in ques- 

 tion, preference shall be given to that which is open to least 

 doubt. 



"2. Of names of undoubtedly equal pertinency, {a) that founded 

 upon the male is to be preferred to that founded upon the female; 

 [b) that founded on the adult to that on the young; and {c) that 

 founded on the nuptial condition to that of the pre- or post-nuptial 

 conditions. 



"3. Of names of undoubtedly equal pertinency, and founded 

 upon the same condition of sex, age, or season, that is to be pre- 

 ferred which stands first in the book." 



