Vo |gX V '] General Notes. 185 



her egg upon the ground. The Vireos deserted, and the Redstarts liking 

 the nest lined it up with the usual material chosen in this locality and 

 retained the nest as their own. The nest, I think, was the property of a 

 pair of Yellow-throated Vireos (Vireo fiavifrons) which I had often 

 observed about. The. nest and eggs are now in the collection of Mr. 

 Brewster. — Francis J. Birtwell, Dorchester, Mass. 



Certhia familiaris americana, not Certhia f. fusca ! — Dr. Cones has 

 recently sought (Auk, April, 1S97, XIV, 216) to resurrect the name Cer- 

 thia fusca Barton (Fragments Nat. Hist. Penn., 1799, 11) and to establish 

 it as the proper designation for the common Brown Creeper of eastern 

 North America. His proposition unfortunately found favor with the 

 A.O.U. Committee, and in the Ninth Supplement to the Check-List (Auk, 

 Jan., 1899, XVI, 126) Barton's name supersedes the long-current ameri- 

 cana. But Certhia fusca Barton, 1799, is preoccupied by Certhia fusca 

 Ginelin, 1788 (Syst. Nat. I, 472) and therefore untenable. The next 

 available name is apparently Certhia americana Bonaparte (Geog. & 

 Comp. List, 1S38, 11), so that the American Brown Creeper must be 

 called, as heretofore, Certhia familiaris americana. — Harry C. Ober- 

 holser, Washing-ton, D. C. 



The Second Reference for Anorthura hiemalis pacifica. — In the Ninth 

 Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List (Auk, Jan., 1S99, XVI, 125) the 

 authority for the combination Anorthura hiemalis pacifica is given as 

 Oberholser, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Nov. 19, 189S, XXI, 421. This is not 

 correct. The proper citation seems to be Ridgway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 June 30, 1883, VI, 94. — Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. 



Piranga rubra and Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis Preoccupied? — 

 The change of Dendroica c&rulea to Dendroica vara (Ridgway, Auk, 

 Jan., 1S97, XIV, 97), which was promptly accepted by the A. O. U. Com- 

 mittee, involves an interpretation of Canon XXXIII of the A. O. U. Code 

 of Nomenclature to which little if any attention seems to have been 

 called. It appears advisable at the present time to raise this question, 

 inasmuch as it affects the validity of some other current names ; and this 

 the more as in regard to it there seems to be neither unanimity of opinion 

 nor uniformity of practice. Briefly stated, it is this : in considering the 

 tenability of specific names, so far as preoccupation is concerned, shall 

 any account be taken of homomyms which are mere combinations, /'. e., 

 not original descriptions? To illustrate: ATotacilla c&rulea of Linnaeus, 

 1766, was called Sylvia cceritlea by Latham in 1790, — evidently a simple 

 transfer of Lin nanus's species to another genus. Now, does this Sylvia 

 co?rulea of Latham, 1790, preclude the use of Sylvia ccerulea Wilson, 1810, 

 for another and widely different species, the former being now a Poliop- 

 tila, the latter a Dendroica} Canon XXXIII is apparently quite explicit 



