1869.] ON THE CUCULIDyE OF LINN^US AND GMELIN. 57 



On the Cuculidfe described hy Idnnoem and Gmelin, with a Sketch of the Genus Eudynamis. H'is, 18G9, 

 By Arthur, Viscount Walden, P.Z.S., &c. [From ' The Ibis,' 1869, plate x., in. oriff.] ^' ^^^' 



It is now a quarter of a century since the rules for zoological nomenclature were promulgated by 



the British Association — a period sufficiently long to enable us to judge of their merits by the 



test of practical experience. How, then, do we now stand 1 To what extent have these rules 



been accepted, more especially the law of priority, by ornithologists at least"? and how have they 



worked 1 To these two questions I believe an answer not altogether unsatisfactory may be given. 



The spirit of the rule of priority has more or less influenced every recent writer. One or two 



may have grumbled, ornithological Tories shocked at the revolutionary tendencies of the binomial 



principle. Some, its most ardent advocates at the time, have since viewed with rather peevish 



impatience discoveries of titles older than those they had accustomed themselves to regard as the 



oldest. Yet, on the whole, the endeavour of most ornithologists has been to discover tlie senior 



title and to adopt it ; and if, now and then, the dead Fathers have been rather left to take care 



of themselves, yet when modern titles have come into conflict, the right of priority has invariably T'^is. ^ 809, 



been asserted by the living author who felt his claim assailed. ^' "^~"'' 



But in the practical working of the rules the results are not as great as, after so many years 

 of trial, we might fairly have expected. For this one reason is to be found in that rule which 

 leaves it optional to authors to alter the old titles they do not consider appropriate. Thus the 

 door is opened for the admission of every caprice, and confusion necessarily follows. What is 

 first required is to ascertain and indisputably establish by universal agreement the oldest title of 

 every species. When that is done it will be time enough to decide what titles are to be retained 

 and which are to be rejected. But the principal reason why ornithological nomenclature has not 

 reached the advanced position we wish it to occupy — the position of a cosmopolitan language 

 conveying definite and identical ideas to all minds, is because no systematic effort has as yet been 

 made to determine all the species of the older authors and place their titles as a whole on a firm 

 foundation. To Sundevall, Pucheran, and Gray we are greatly indebted for the immense labour 

 they have expended on their respective endeavours to identify the species of Sparrman and Le 

 Vaillant, of Cuvier, Vieillot and Lesson, and of Buffon, Temminck, Le Vaillant, Edwards and 

 Vieillot ; while Moore and Cabanis, Hartlaub, Malherbe and Finsch have devoted an amount of 

 sound labour on the nomenclature of the species they have to deal with, which can only be 

 thoroughly appreciated by those who are well acquainted with their work. Nor must we forget 

 the late Mr. Strickland and, alas ! Mr. Cassin. Yet the foundation of a correct system of nomen- 

 clature cannot be said to have been laid until the whole of the species enumerated in the Xllth 

 and Xlllth editions of the ' Systema Naturae,' the very corner-stone of the structure we desire to 

 raise, have been either identified or disposed of. As a slight contribution to a work of this nature, 

 I purpose in the following pages to attempt the identification of the species belonging to the 

 modern family of the Cuculidce described in these two editions of the ' Systema.' 



In the Xllth edition twenty-two species were enumerated by Linnaeus under his genus ibis. 18G9, 

 Cuculus, and received titles ; and one species was added as a variety. Of these, three belong P- "^-'^• 

 to other genera, and of the remaining nineteen titles eleven have been more or less satis- 

 factorily identified, leaving eight designations either undetermined or wrongfully or doubtfully 



I 



