NOMENCLATURE OF AMERICAN BIRDS. I41 



not literature," and that its names are meaningless 

 except as *' handles to facts." It is, however, ap- 

 parently the general feeling of ornithologists, that 

 names of this sort are too firmly fixed in their 

 science to be now set aside. The Committee goes 

 so far as to say (page 52) that '' the mere mention 

 of a type has been found to be often a better in- 

 dex to an author's meaning than is frequently 



proper logical basis therefor.' Professor Gill then proceeds to 

 make the usual statements about the inadequacy of the earlier 

 generic descriptions, etc., — a mode of reasoning generally resorted 

 to under similar circumstances. 



" In taking his position, it is evident that Professor Gill and his 

 school (for he is not alone in his views) have to contend not only 

 with the wisdoi. of the American and British Associations, but 

 with that of the other bodies above mentioned. It would seem 

 superfluous for us to defend a fortification so strongly held ; but 

 the heresy in question has had considerable run in America, 

 and it is fitting that linen should be washed where it has been 

 soiled. In brief, then, one reason why a description is necessary 

 in adding a new name to scientific nomenclature is that science 

 is science and not literature, — a distinction occasionally lost sight 

 of by a few writers on natural history. In other words, it deals 

 with things, and not words ; and the only connection words have 

 with science is to represent things. As this cannot be done with- 

 out a preliminary definition, names alone {nomina nuda) do not 

 belong to science at all, but to the arts of composition and litera- 

 ture. Second, the inconvenience of the substitution of literary 

 methods for scientific methods in scientific work is so great that 

 scientists have felt compelled to protect themselves against these 

 * literary fellows.* By insisting on definitions, these gentlemen 

 are placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. They do not 

 wish to forego the pleasure of creating a new lexicon, but to com- 

 pose a diagnosis is for them a very serious business. Literature, 

 a critic says, deals with * manner,' while science treats of ' matter,' 

 and a diagnosis is a concentrated extract of matter. Between the 

 two horns of the dilemma he will generally (not always, we are 

 sorry to say) prefer the less conspicuous course, and abandon no- 

 menclature as a profession." — Aniericajt Naturalist, Nov. 8, i88i. 



