( 455 ) 



asking us to accept some, reject others, and leaving the rest to be decider! by 

 individual authors, upon each of whose shoulders must rest " the burden of proof 

 that he is justified " ? 



One more matter upon which I feel the Commission have erred. 



In Opinion 36 the Commission have added a dangerous little clause to 

 Article 19, which reads r "The original orthography of a name is to lie preserved 

 unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is 

 evident." After transcription, the < 'ommission would add ("sen translitera- 

 tion "), and then note "the evidence should in general be present in the original 

 documents." (The italics are mine.) 



What will constitute an error of transliteration ? 



In the past we have had purists correcting purists as to this point, and a good 

 example of the state of chaos that will ensue is evidenced by the name Chroico- 

 cephalus. Introduced {Cat. Brit. Birds 1836, p. 53) in a work apparently published 

 in two parts, the second part (Hist. Barer Brit. Birds 1836, p. 57) gives its 

 derivation icpoiico<;+ coloured, and iee<fia\7), head. Note the emendments proposed 

 by purists who indicated errors of transliteration: Kroicocephalus, Kroikocephalus, 

 C&roiocepkalus, Ckroecocephalus, and Chroocepkalus. Further, this opinion would 

 seem to contradict Article 36, Recommendations, the wording of which is : " It is 

 well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from generic 

 names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation iu spelling, which 

 might lead to confusion. But, when once introduced, such names are not to be 

 rejected on this account. Examples : Polyodus, Poh/odun, Polyodonta, Pobj- 

 od out ax, Polyodontus." 



But are not such as these due to errors of transliteration ? 



I>oes not the acceptance of Opinion 3(5 necessitate the emendation of generic, 

 names ending in -os, derived from Greek os, into -us? This would be the first, 

 others would follow, and many such other questions would be raised, necessitating 

 many Opinions. Must the time of the Commission be occupied in dealing with 

 trivial questions like this? Would it not be better to have confirmed the Recom- 

 mendations, Article 36, by firmly establishing absolute " one-letterism " and 

 considering every name to be " words formed by an arbitrary combination of 

 letters " ? 



