VO !'sJ 111 ] Correspondence. it) I 



(inslv in combination with the same generic name."' It the first clause 

 above quoted be not subject to ambiguous interpretation, it seems evident 

 that a new name will be required for the form now known as Dryobates 

 -'Hiatus montanus Anthony. 



Since, however, it is maintained by some that absolute identity of both 

 generic and specific term-, is considered necessary for the rejection of a 

 scientific name as a synonym, in other words, that a distinction is to be 

 made between the genus of nomenclature and the genus of zoology, it is 

 hoped that there may be elicited from members of the A. (). I'. Com- 

 mittee statements of their views respecting the rule to be applied in 

 cases like the present. 



Verv trulj yours, 



Harry C. Oberholser. 

 Washington, 1). C. 



[Mr. Oberholser having kindly invited me to give my opinion on the 

 above case. I take the liberty of submitting the following, as merelv m\ 

 individual ruling on the question. 



According to my interpretation of Canon XXXIII of the A. ( ). LT. 

 ' Code,' there is no conflict between Anthony's name Dryobates villostis 

 montanus and Brehm's Picus montanus, for the simple reason that thev 

 are not homonyms. A species name necessarily consists of two elements, 

 a generic and a specific, both being essential components of the name. 

 This is explicitly stated in Canon X of the A. O. U. Code, which affirms 

 that the two names, the specific and the generic, ••together" constitute 

 the " technical name of any specifically distinct organism." That this 

 view was in the mind of the Committee in framing Canon XXXIII is 

 evident from the argument and illustrations given under it in favor of 

 extending the maxim " Once a synonym [or homonvm] always a synonvin 

 [or homonym] " to specific and subspecitic names. 



To pursue further the case cited by Mr. Oberholser. Picus montanus 

 Brehm is a pure synonym of Picus major Linn., and the name montanus 

 had never been coupled with Dryobates prior to Mr. Anthony's combina- 

 tion of the two terms, — that is, so far as we know, and for the sake of 

 the illustration, let it be granted that thev have not. These names are 

 then not homonyms, and can never come in conflict. But let us suppose 

 that Picus montanus Brehm really represents a good species, authors 

 hitherto to the contrary notwithstanding, and that it is referable to the 

 genus Dryobates. In that case whoever restores the species must adopt 

 for it the name Dryobates montanus (Brehm), and Anthonv's name, having 

 been given later, must be replaced by a new name ; but the change is not 

 to be made until the necessity therefor arises. In nine cases out of ten, 

 like this of Anthony and Brehm, it is safe to say the necessity for a change 

 would never arise. Hence it would be highly unwise to adopt a rule, in 

 view of the constantly changing limits and values of genera, that would 



