4o8 



Recent Liferature. \^:^''^ 



history of collections, from the travels of collectors, and the distribution 

 of the various forms. Our sul:)stituted localities are therefore not onlj' of 

 value for the present work — inasmuch as they indicate that particular 

 form with which we have compared, or tried to compare, the specimens 

 before us, when deciding about their subspecific relations — but ive expect 

 them to be accepted as the starting-point for future xvork also." The 

 acceptance, so emphatically insisted upon, must of course depend upon 

 the merits of their ruling in each particular case ; but, in most cases at 

 least, their decisions appear to ha\e been made with care and will doubt- 

 less meet with approval. As thev truly say, if in separating an early 

 composite species into its proper elements, errors sometimes made in tak- 

 ing a wrong form for the 'typical' one would be avoided if proper con- 

 sideration were given to the subject of the original ' habitat.' They add : 

 "If no such one is given, the fiist author who 'splits' the form up has 

 the right to accept one ; and this right we may logically claim in cases 

 where we have not named a new form." This principle is so obviously 

 sound, and is so widely followed, at least in America, that we are only 

 surprised that it should be thought necessary to state the matter with so 

 much insistence. 



We quote further with pleasure the closing paragraph of Mr. Hartert's 

 ' Concluding Remarks ' : "In nomenclatorial questions and orthography 

 of names we have adhered strictly to priority, and although our ideas are 

 not quite the same in everj' detail, we were able to agree in almost every 

 case. This clearly shows that those who pretend that no finality can be 

 reached in nomenclature' are quite in error. It is always the ignorance 

 or disregard of the first publication, and the emendation of the spelling, 

 that causes trouble, not the unsophisticated reference to and use of the 

 earliest name as it was and is." This is assurance that the tendency is 

 strong in favor of the strict enforcement of the law of priority and the 

 non-emendation of names, so strenuously advocated for many years by 

 the A. O. U. We are therefore not a little surprised to note on p. 129, 

 apropos of Parra xa. Jacana, that these authors "refuse Brisson's names 

 of genera, which are no genera in the Linna^an sense." Brisson's names 

 were especially accepted by the original B. A. Code (1842), they antedating 

 the Xllth edition of Linnieus, which this Code made the starting-point 

 of the binomial system of nomenclature, and are now in current use by 

 the greater part of both mammalogists and ornithologists. It is therefore 

 to be hoped that for the sake of uniformity and harmony these authors 

 will, on further consideration, waive their preferences in favor of accept- 

 ing Brissonian genera. The objection that they are "no genera," in the 

 modern sense, will apply quite as well to the currently accepted 'genera' 

 of many other authors. — J. A. A. 



' "Some reviewers of modern zoological literature are especially fond of this 

 vague statement." 



