224 Recent Literature. [ ee] 
Todd on New Birds from Colombia and Bolivia.'— ‘ The Auk’ has 
on several occasions felt compelled to take exception to the wholly inade- 
quate diagnoses which some authors issue as the basis for new names. 
From the letters received from many prominent ornithologists we are 
assured that our stand is endorsed by the great majority of those who have 
the advancement of ornithology at heart. We regret exceedingly to have 
to revert to the matter again, but in a recent paper by Mr. Todd, we find 
new names proposed without adequate descriptions some of which have al- 
ready proved stumbling blocks to others, working in the same field, the 
progress of ornithology being thus hindered instead of advanced. 
These diagnoses are styled ‘‘preliminary,” but both author and pub- 
lishers know that a name must stand upon the original description, that is 
the one to which our reference leads us, and in the majority of cases we do 
not know whether supplementary diagnoses have appeared or not, and even 
if they have we are compelled in involved cases to rely upon the original 
diagnosis alone, additional information given subsequently may refer to 
the original species or it may not. 
Why — and we ask in all seriousness — cannot all who are engaged in 
systematic work realize, as most of them do, that they are under a serious 
obligation to their fellow workers in making their descriptions as clear and 
definite as they possibly can, supplying measurements and comparisons 
with all related forms, so as to make the consultation of types a last resort 
instead of, as it often is, the only method of determining what a writer is 
naming? 
It is we think high time that all ornithologists realize the seriousness of 
the work in which they are engaged or they will become the laughing stock 
of other systematists. In the volume of the ‘Proceedings of the Biological 
Society of Washington’ in which this paper appears there are new species 
of mammals, birds, reptiles, ophiurans, fossil insects, mollusks, etc. all well 
described. Why cannot the journal insist upon the same standard for 
all the diagnoses which appear on its pages? Some time ago there was a 
general agreement among American scientific publications that they would 
publish no new genera unless types were designated by the authors. If a 
similar stand were taken with regard to new species by refusing to publish 
“preliminary” or inadequate diagnoses systematic ornithology would be 
greatly benefited. If neither authors nor editors will realize the serious- 
ness of this matter there will ere long be a call to revise the Code of No- 
menclature so that the citation of a type specimen will not save a wholly 
inadequate description from the unidentifiable category. 
The new names proposed by Mr. Todd in this paper are as follows: 
From Bolivar, Colombia: Phenicothraupis rubiginosus (p. 3) Turbaco; 
Myiobius modestus suffusus (p. 4) Turbaco; Attila caniceps (p. 4) Jaraquiel; 
Xiphocolaptes procerus rostratus (p. 5) Jaraquiel; Pheochroa cuvierit notia 
1 Preliminary Diagnoses of Apparently New Birds from Colombia and Bolivia. By 
W.E. Clyde Todd. Proc. Biol. Soc. of Washington, Vol. 30, pp. 3-6. January 22, 1917. 
tas 
