Xvill INTRODUCTION. 
1831. Phyllopneuste (Brehm ex Meyer). 
1836. Sylvicola (Eyton nec Swainson). 
1847. Reguloides (Blyth). 
1858. Acanthopneuste (Blasius). 
1875. Phyllopseuste (Meyer fide Meves). 
How is the unfortunate ornithologist to select his generic name from 
such a series? ‘To solve this complicated problem Strickland drew up his 
celebrated Rules of Nomenclature, which were afterwards adopted with 
slight modifications by the British Association for the Advancement of 
Science. 
So far as regards specific names, I have throughout this work set the 
Rules of the British Association at defiance, being convinced that, so far 
as ornithology is concerned, they have done infinitely more harm than 
good. Every day that they are retained increases the confusion which 
they have introduced. No one has had the courage to attempt to carry 
them out on a large scale ; but first one writer and then another intro- 
duces a new name, changes are being constantly made, and names are 
occasionally being transferred from one species to another, until it abso- 
lutely becomes necessary, in many cases, to quote the English names of 
birds as well as the Latin ones, the latter having been altered in obedience 
to the Stricklandian code, so that they are sometimes absolutely unknown 
to the general reader, or having been applied to different species, so that it 
is impossible to tell which of them is meant. 
The mischief which these Rules have produced is bad enough ; but the 
mischief which they must continually produce if any ornithologist is 
found bold enough to carry them out is far greater; and not a moment 
should be lost by every ornithologist jealous of the prosperity and honour 
of his favourite study in boycotting the new names, or exposing them in the 
pillory of synonyms. ‘ 
The Stricklandian Code is admirable in theory, but utterly breaks down 
in practice. The Rules of the British Association are most excellent if 
applied in Utopia, but amongst a more or less muddle-headed race as 
ornithologists always have been, and as we still remain, they can only be 
productive of endless dispute and confusion. We cannot be trusted to 
form an opinion as to whether the brief and often blundering diagnoses of 
Linnzeus, Gmelin, or Latham are or are not clear definitions of the names 
to which they are annexed. ‘To expect unanimity on such difficult ques- 
tions is absurd. I have adopted a scheme which appears to me to be the 
most practical of any which have been suggested. It may not satisfy the 
requirements of poetical justice ; but it is at least consistent with common 
sense! I adopt the specific name which has been mast used by previous 
writers. It is not necessary for me to encumber my nomenclature with a 
third name, either to denote the species to which it refers, or to flatter the 
vanity of the author who described it; all my names are auctorum pluri- 
