r886.] Recent Literature, 



395 



ornithologists have been able to agree upon it, and that thej have applied 

 it in detail to the production of a check-list, would show that for them the 

 rules are good and sufficient. There are, in the 'Code,' a few traces of 

 compromise; cases in which the sharpness of some positive ruling is 

 somewhat blunted by exceptions. Some of these doubtless arise from dif- 

 ference of opinion among ornithologists, and others ptobably from pecu- 

 liarities in the literature of ornithology. But whether these modifications 

 be unavoidable or not, it must be remembered that no compromise will be 

 binding on future authors, and exceptions, not inherent in the nature of 

 the case, will be more and more ignored. 



A serious difficulty with all preceding codes of nomenclature, has been 

 a lack of explicitness in dealing with details. It has been hoped by zoolo- 

 gists generally, that in this 'Code' all the important difficulties would be 

 fairly met and disposed of in ways which could be followed in other 

 sciences. In other words, we have hoped that this 'Code' would be one 

 for zoologists and botanists generally and not solely for ornithologists. 

 That such a hope was in the minds of the committee also is evident from 

 the care with which they have worked over and considered all previous 

 codes, as well as from their own explicit statement (page ii) : "These 

 rules were considered in their bearing upon Zoology at large, as well as 

 upon Ornithology alone; it being obvious that sound principles of no- 

 menclature should be susceptible of general application." 



From this broad standpoint, then, should the 'Code' be judged, and any 

 rules or provisions based on compromise of opinions, as well as any 

 arising from special peculiarities of ornithological literature, must be re- 

 garded as blemishes on the 'Code.' 



Speaking only for himself and for his special line of work, the present 

 writer wishes to express his great satisfaction with the 'Code.' In all its 

 essential features, the 'Code' must commend itself at once to those who 

 have made questions of nomenclature the subject of serious thought, and 

 its rules for the most part need only formulation to secure adoption. 



Where so much has been done and so admirably done, any word of 

 criticism is thankless. A few points, however, occur to the writer, view- 

 ing this code of rules from the standpoint of his own experience. 



The first of these is in regard to the Canon XVII, in so far as this ap- 

 plies to different names given in the same work to the same group. 



This Canon reads as follows : 



"Canon XVII. Preference between competitive specific names pub- 

 lished simultaneously in the same work, or in two works of the same 

 actual or ostensible date (no exact date being ascertainable), is to be de- 

 cided as follows : — 



"i. Of names the equal pertinency of which may be in question, 

 preference shall be given to that which is open to least doubt. 



"2. Of names of undoubtedly equal pertinency, (r?) that founded upon 

 the male is to be preferred to that founded upon the female, {b) that 

 founded upon the adult to that on the young, and (c) that founded on the 

 nuptial condition to that of the pre- or post-nuptial conditions. 



