^"^'me'^'"] Notes and News. Ill 



knew nothing of the classification of birds, however, and so the galleys went 

 forward with the result now to be found in "The Anatomical Record" 

 (Vol. 9, No. 10, Oct. 20, 1915, pp. 749-750). 



In so far as my present views are concerned with respect to the position 

 of the Aramidce in the system, they are correctly set forth in "The Ana- 

 tomical Record" of August 20, 1915 (Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 591-606). 



Faithfully yours, 



R. W. Shufeldt. 



NOTES AND NEWS. 



Systematic zoology occupies a peculiar position in the field of science, 

 in that its pubhcations are to a certain extent privileged — i. e. protected 

 by laws which do not pertain to other scientific publications. The latter 

 are judged on their merits and an author who is guilty of slipshod careless 

 writing, or whose publications are ambiguous or insufficient, is ignored; 

 the merits of his work discounted, and his conclusions questioned. In 

 other words he loses caste in the scientific world. Not so the describer 

 of new species. No matter how bad or inadequate his diagnosis or how 

 unnecessary the naming of the species, a name once proposed has nomen- 

 clatural status, and is a part of systematic science — for this matter is 

 governed by the rules of nomenclature. 



These rules were formulated mainly for the purpose of dealing with the 

 earlier Hterature of zoology where names were proposed by writers who 

 did not realize their responsibilities and did not consider the importance 

 of making their descriptions adequate for the future. Obviously if we 

 are to have stability of nomenclature on a basis of priority all of these 

 earlier names must be considered and hence the rules. 



It probably never occurred to the framers of any of the Codes of Nomen- 

 clature that present day systematists would take advantage of these rules 

 to save themselves trouble, and publish new names with just enough de- 

 scription to save their status under the rules; and yet this is precisely 

 the situation that we face today in ornithology — and possibly in other 

 branches of zoology and botany. 



Hundreds of new birds have been named in recent years with diagnoses 

 limited to one or two lines. These birds are not described, no one could 

 identify them from the meagre diagnoses but in each case a type specimen 

 and a type locaUty are cited and in that way the law is complied with and 

 we are prevented from rejecting the name as vmidentifiable ! The author 

 has another species to his credit, he or the institution he represents has 

 another type specimen, but other ornithologists are put to the trouble 



