A ROUGH TENTATIVE LIST OF THE BIRDS OF INDIA. 7 
pounds, such as Butastur, pomarinus, Rhyticeros, &c., where 
syllables have been designedly elided by syncope or fused by 
synerasis for the sake of euphony or to avoid an unpleasant 
alliteration. From this rule I have only deviated where such 
syncope has led to misconception, as where a black-backed bird 
has been called melanotus (for melanonotus), and this has led to 
its generally appearing as melanotis, or black-eared. 
There are many names of which I can make nothing, and 
with whose orthography or transliteration, treating them as 
nonsense names, I have not concerned myself. Take, for in- 
stance, Jerdon’s Brachypodius poiocephalus. If poio were taken 
from the Greek, it should be spelt pao, but there is no Greek 
word apparently from which it could come, except the Doric 
or Ionic forms of zou, grass, as in omvouos, feeding on 
grass. But “ grass-headed’’ would be an absurd name for a 
grey-headed bird, the rest of whose body was green, I have 
no doubt that Dr. Jerdon meant to write poliocephala (hoary- 
headed) or phaocephala (grey-headed), but he did not, and so as 
the word poto cannot be taken as from the Greek, I have written 
it potocephala, as Jerdon did, and have not altered it, it being 
impossible to discover now whether he intended poliocephala or 
pheocephala. 
Having thus briefly indicated the principles on which I have 
endeavoured to guide myself in compiling the nomenclature 
of this list, let me hasten to admit that most probably I have 
in my haste, unwittingly in some cases, disregarded these 
principles. 
A list like this must be full of errors of nomenclature, and 
I can only most earnestly invite the co-operation of every one 
into whose hands it may fall in correcting it. 
In order to facilitate its rectification, I shall retain a special 
section at the end of all future numbers of this journal, where 
all corrections and additions proved or discovered to be 
necessary will be indicated, and where all disputed points con- 
nected with it can be argued out and discussed. 
I by no means promise to accept all volunteered emenda- 
tions, but I do promise to give all such which are based on 
the Code a fair field, and to accept or explain fully my reasons 
for rejecting them. 
I say “ dased on the Code,” because it must be clearly under- 
stood that I am not prepared to re-argue points definitely set- 
tled by that Code. I do not personally agree with many of its 
dicta, but I consider uniformity of such paramount importance 
as to render it the plain duty of every British naturalist to 
abide strictly by all its dicta, (not merely those he may chance 
to concur in, but by the Code as a whole,) until it shall have 
