TGzt Recent Literature. [Jtdy 



\y taken up bj Mr. J. A. Allen in 1871, and which has culminated 

 in the trinomial system of nomenclature, has relieved workers in other 

 fields from the need of urging the same considerations. So soon as our 

 facts are sufficient for us to use the trinomial system, we shall find it 

 ready for our use, perfected in all its details. 



Again, the absolute importance of the law of priority has impressed 

 itself on the ornithologists, in spite of themselves, for in past times the 

 ornithologists have been among those who have most sinned against this 

 same law. The efforts of Cassin, Coues, Stejneger, and others to ascer- 

 tain the facts in regard to old names have shown that no middle ground 

 exists between law and chaos in matters of nomenclature. 



It is true, as the authors of the 'Code' have insisted, that "nomencla- 

 ture is a means and not an end in science." But the experience of orni- 

 thologists have shown us that in systematic zoology and in zoogeography, 

 this means is one absolutely essential to any end of importance. A 

 system of nomenclature based on common fairness and common sense, 

 and stable, because above the reach of individual whim or choice, is as 

 necessary to success in this kind of work as a sharp scalpel is to good 

 work in anatomy. 



So long as no rules superior to the caprice of the individual or the tra- 

 dition of some museum are recognized, so long is systematic work a mere 

 burlesque, and our schemes of classification anything but a mirror of 

 nature. 



But besides the positive advances made by the ornithologists, from 

 which others may profit when the time comes, there is something for us 

 to learn from the results of their less fortunate experiments. 



An illustration of this may be taken from the last Check-list of Dr. 

 Coues. This work is in many respects most valuable. In it, however, so 

 much learning and labor has been expended in the mending and remodel- 

 ling of scientific names, as fairly to bring purism in that regard to reduc- 

 tio ad absurdam. 



Hence the Committee on the new code, with Dr. Coues at its head, 

 now declares that "a name is only a name, and has no necessary mean- 

 ing," and therefore no necessarily correct orthography. After this experi- 

 ence, the work of strengthening the lame and halting words is hardly 

 likely to be continued in other fields of science. 



Another illustration may be drawn from the excessive multiplication of 

 genera, a stage through which ornithology has naturally passed, and 

 which other sciences, profiting from this experience, may possibly be able 

 to avoid. 



The work may be considered from three points of view. First, as a 

 'Check-List,' representing the present aggregate of our knowledge of 

 North American birds. In this regard, the work seems to the present 

 writer to be altogether admirable, and to leave no gi-ound whatever for 

 adverse criticism. 



The 'Code' may be considered first in its adaption to the needs of orni- 

 tliology. In this respect there is little to criticise. The fact that the 



